[guest39538]

I think we should hear about the dimensional analysis you used in deriving your equation. And if you spout any nonsense I might be tempted to ban you permanently. How's that?

Well!  I'm used to getting banned for no reason so you'd just be on my long list of useless moderation on forums . 

But in answer to your questions my analysis as been about a decade long making an analysis of science in general to finally get to this equation .

I finally got there by using E=mc²  and  The enthalpy of a thermodynamic system is defined as[13][14]
H = U + p V , {\displaystyle H=U+pV,}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy

From this I converted my long running N-field maths to something a bit more in your own language . I have presented my new equation several times in the past before but not using the same context so you could never understand what I was trying to say .

Is that enough spouting for you ?

My breakdown

u=

E³=

E=m(pE³)=

P.s Everything is time …

added- Oh yea , almost forgot , remember our chat before

K_max =

ΔS = Δ = ΔkE/t

[guest39538]

Einstein took Minowski space-time xyzt and all he did was consider the binary interwoven field that occupied that space . From this he deduced space-time the interwoven 4d model , space and time as a single manifold , however he did not consider that time itself is everything and although indistinguishable from Minowski space , time is everything that can change , independent from Minowski space .

Then Einstein also took Newtons F=ma2  and instead of an acceleration used a constant speed , it's not the natural energy equation , if it energy released by force equation .

What Einstein meant by time , was the internal energy of a system u .

[The Spoon]

Deliberately avoiding the question please explain what each symbol represents and how it is relevant to the specific thing you claim it calculates. Also, explain why the following statement is true:'If you increase the magnitude of E³ you increase the volume ,the block expands'Explain using words not what you claim to be maths so that the concept can be assessed.

u is internal energy  and any volume of u  absorbs energy and reradiates this energy . The absorbing of energy expressed *E³ because it's isotropic in nature , so if you have a ''cold'' metal block the ''hot'' is attracted to that block isotropic .  The block will then try to retain an equilibrium and divide this gained energy by the surrounding volume of the block .  Additionally the block itself expands because the whole of the block  tries to divide itself by the surrounding space but the blocks binary bond helps to retain form by pulling back .

What do you think you mean by binary bond? Tell us how you derived this 'equation'. No flannel, none of your 'n-field' nonsense.

[guest39538]

Deliberately avoiding the question please explain what each symbol represents and how it is relevant to the specific thing you claim it calculates. Also, explain why the following statement is true:'If you increase the magnitude of E³ you increase the volume ,the block expands'Explain using words not what you claim to be maths so that the concept can be assessed.

u is internal energy  and any volume of u  absorbs energy and reradiates this energy . The absorbing of energy expressed *E³ because it's isotropic in nature , so if you have a ''cold'' metal block the ''hot'' is attracted to that block isotropic .  The block will then try to retain an equilibrium and divide this gained energy by the surrounding volume of the block .  Additionally the block itself expands because the whole of the block  tries to divide itself by the surrounding space but the blocks binary bond helps to retain form by pulling back .

What do you think you mean by binary bond? Tell us how you derived this 'equation'. No flannel, none of your 'n-field' nonsense.

(-e) + (+1E) = binary atomic  bond

I derived at the equation because I have my N-field theory 

But , in words , I can envision anything , I can ''see'' the process so I only needed the correct symbols to use in the correct order of event .

The problem is , what you call flannel , is how I derived my equation  and I have no idea why people struggle to understand a neutral field concept ,    not an electrical universe I might add, electricity is a product of manipulating the neutral atomic binary fields .

= Neutral  = U 

[The Spoon]

Deliberately avoiding the question please explain what each symbol represents and how it is relevant to the specific thing you claim it calculates. Also, explain why the following statement is true:'If you increase the magnitude of E³ you increase the volume ,the block expands'Explain using words not what you claim to be maths so that the concept can be assessed.

u is internal energy  and any volume of u  absorbs energy and reradiates this energy . The absorbing of energy expressed *E³ because it's isotropic in nature , so if you have a ''cold'' metal block the ''hot'' is attracted to that block isotropic .  The block will then try to retain an equilibrium and divide this gained energy by the surrounding volume of the block .  Additionally the block itself expands because the whole of the block  tries to divide itself by the surrounding space but the blocks binary bond helps to retain form by pulling back .

What do you think you mean by binary bond? Tell us how you derived this 'equation'. No flannel, none of your 'n-field' nonsense.

(-e) + (+1E) = binary atomic  bond

I derived at the equation because I have my N-field theory :d

But , in words , I can envision anything , I can ''see'' the process so I only needed the correct symbols to use in the correct order of event .

The problem is , what you call flannel , is how I derived my equation  and I have no idea why people struggle to understand a neutral field concept ,    not an electrical universe I might add, electricity is a product of manipulating the neutral atomic binary fields .

= Neutral  = U 

So more nonsense then.

[guest39538]

Deliberately avoiding the question please explain what each symbol represents and how it is relevant to the specific thing you claim it calculates. Also, explain why the following statement is true:'If you increase the magnitude of E³ you increase the volume ,the block expands'Explain using words not what you claim to be maths so that the concept can be assessed.

u is internal energy  and any volume of u  absorbs energy and reradiates this energy . The absorbing of energy expressed *E³ because it's isotropic in nature , so if you have a ''cold'' metal block the ''hot'' is attracted to that block isotropic .  The block will then try to retain an equilibrium and divide this gained energy by the surrounding volume of the block .  Additionally the block itself expands because the whole of the block  tries to divide itself by the surrounding space but the blocks binary bond helps to retain form by pulling back .

What do you think you mean by binary bond? Tell us how you derived this 'equation'. No flannel, none of your 'n-field' nonsense.

(-e) + (+1E) = binary atomic  bond

I derived at the equation because I have my N-field theory :d

But , in words , I can envision anything , I can ''see'' the process so I only needed the correct symbols to use in the correct order of event .

The problem is , what you call flannel , is how I derived my equation  and I have no idea why people struggle to understand a neutral field concept ,    not an electrical universe I might add, electricity is a product of manipulating the neutral atomic binary fields .

= Neutral  = U 

So more nonsense then.

Huh ? Are you saying an electron plus a proton charge doesn't measure neutral ? 0 net charge .

It's not nonsense .

[Kryptid]

I see that you have "u" standing in for "internal energy" and "E" standing in for just "energy". How do you distinguish between these two?

[guest39538]

I see that you have "u" standing in for "internal energy" and "E" standing in for just "energy". How do you distinguish between these two?

The density function of an object or gases compared to the density function of light propagating through the spatial ''vacuum'' .

I personally just use ρ=1 for any atom where ρ is density .  For an object it is different though because of compression of atoms  . 

For the spatial vacuum I use ρ=0 although this can be increased to 1 by applying space-time curvature  .

[Kryptid]

The density function of an object or gases compared to the density function of light propagating through the spatial ''vacuum'' .

I personally just use ρ=1 for any atom where ρ is density .  For an object it is different though because of compression of atoms  . 

For the spatial vacuum I use ρ=0 although this can be increased to 1 by applying space-time curvature  .

And what is a "density function"? I thought you were talking about energy, not density.

[guest39538]

The density function of an object or gases compared to the density function of light propagating through the spatial ''vacuum'' .

I personally just use ρ=1 for any atom where ρ is density .  For an object it is different though because of compression of atoms  . 

For the spatial vacuum I use ρ=0 although this can be increased to 1 by applying space-time curvature  .

And what is a "density function"? I thought you were talking about energy, not density.

U has a density function , any given point of space can contain more than one ''photon'' simultaneously .

[The Spoon]

I see that you have "u" standing in for "internal energy" and "E" standing in for just "energy". How do you distinguish between these two?

The density function of an object or gases compared to the density function of light propagating through the spatial ''vacuum'' .

I personally just use ρ=1 for any atom where ρ is density .  For an object it is different though because of compression of atoms  . 

For the spatial vacuum I use ρ=0 although this can be increased to 1 by applying space-time curvature  .

Why is the density of any atom equal to 1? Where is your data to back this up?

[The Spoon]

The density function of an object or gases compared to the density function of light propagating through the spatial ''vacuum'' .

I personally just use ρ=1 for any atom where ρ is density .  For an object it is different though because of compression of atoms  . 

For the spatial vacuum I use ρ=0 although this can be increased to 1 by applying space-time curvature  .

And what is a "density function"? I thought you were talking about energy, not density.

U has a density function , any given point of space can contain more than one ''photon'' simultaneously .

Where is your data to back this up?

[The Spoon]

Deliberately avoiding the question please explain what each symbol represents and how it is relevant to the specific thing you claim it calculates. Also, explain why the following statement is true:'If you increase the magnitude of E³ you increase the volume ,the block expands'Explain using words not what you claim to be maths so that the concept can be assessed.

u is internal energy  and any volume of u  absorbs energy and reradiates this energy . The absorbing of energy expressed *E³ because it's isotropic in nature , so if you have a ''cold'' metal block the ''hot'' is attracted to that block isotropic .  The block will then try to retain an equilibrium and divide this gained energy by the surrounding volume of the block .  Additionally the block itself expands because the whole of the block  tries to divide itself by the surrounding space but the blocks binary bond helps to retain form by pulling back .

What do you think you mean by binary bond? Tell us how you derived this 'equation'. No flannel, none of your 'n-field' nonsense.

(-e) + (+1E) = binary atomic  bond

I derived at the equation because I have my N-field theory :d

But , in words , I can envision anything , I can ''see'' the process so I only needed the correct symbols to use in the correct order of event .

The problem is , what you call flannel , is how I derived my equation  and I have no idea why people struggle to understand a neutral field concept ,    not an electrical universe I might add, electricity is a product of manipulating the neutral atomic binary fields .

= Neutral  = U 

So more nonsense then.

Huh ? Are you saying an electron plus a proton charge doesn't measure neutral ? 0 net charge .

It's not nonsense .

Nope. I am saying your so called n-field is nonsense as has been discussed previously to the point of tedium pigeon.

[guest39538]

The density function of an object or gases compared to the density function of light propagating through the spatial ''vacuum'' .

I personally just use ρ=1 for any atom where ρ is density .  For an object it is different though because of compression of atoms  . 

For the spatial vacuum I use ρ=0 although this can be increased to 1 by applying space-time curvature  .

And what is a "density function"? I thought you were talking about energy, not density.

U has a density function , any given point of space can contain more than one ''photon'' simultaneously .

Where is your data to back this up?

''Bosons obey Bose-Einstein statistics, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle does not apply to them. This means photons can have the same quantum state (same position, momentum, etc.)''

[guest39538]

Nope. I am saying your so called n-field is nonsense as has been discussed previously to the point of tedium pigeon.

Really ? Then space-time does not exist if you say that .

[The Spoon]

The density function of an object or gases compared to the density function of light propagating through the spatial ''vacuum'' .

I personally just use ρ=1 for any atom where ρ is density .  For an object it is different though because of compression of atoms  . 

For the spatial vacuum I use ρ=0 although this can be increased to 1 by applying space-time curvature  .

And what is a "density function"? I thought you were talking about energy, not density.

U has a density function , any given point of space can contain more than one ''photon'' simultaneously .

Where is your data to back this up?

''Bosons obey Bose-Einstein statistics, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle does not apply to them. This means photons can have the same quantum state (same position, momentum, etc.)''

And where does this show that any point of space can contain more than one photon simultaneously.?
And answer Kryptid's question.

[The Spoon]

Nope. I am saying your so called n-field is nonsense as has been discussed previously to the point of tedium pigeon.

Really ? Then space-time does not exist if you say that .

Nope. I am saying your idea is nonsense. It is sloppily thought out pratting about.

[guest39538]

The density function of an object or gases compared to the density function of light propagating through the spatial ''vacuum'' .

I personally just use ρ=1 for any atom where ρ is density .  For an object it is different though because of compression of atoms  . 

For the spatial vacuum I use ρ=0 although this can be increased to 1 by applying space-time curvature  .

And what is a "density function"? I thought you were talking about energy, not density.

U has a density function , any given point of space can contain more than one ''photon'' simultaneously .

Where is your data to back this up?

''Bosons obey Bose-Einstein statistics, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle does not apply to them. This means photons can have the same quantum state (same position, momentum, etc.)''

And where does this show that any point of space can contain more than one photon simultaneously.?
And answer Kryptid's question.

A photon is not an object , not only can photons occupy the same spatial point , atomic opposite charge can occupy the same spatial point and the reason for this is that there is no reason it can't .

I did answer Krytid question .

[guest39538]

Nope. I am saying your so called n-field is nonsense as has been discussed previously to the point of tedium pigeon.

Really ? Then space-time does not exist if you say that .

Nope. I am saying your idea is nonsense. It is sloppily thought out pratting about.

Really ? Do you not realise the n-field is the interwoven fabric of time ?

[The Spoon]

Nope. I am saying your so called n-field is nonsense as has been discussed previously to the point of tedium pigeon.

Really ? Then space-time does not exist if you say that .

Nope. I am saying your idea is nonsense. It is sloppily thought out pratting about.

Really ? Do you not realise the n-field is the interwoven fabric of time ?

No, it is something you have made up pigeon.