[guest39538]

Q isn't 1/t

Yes it is when Q1+Q2=Q3=1 or a+b=c=1 

[guest39538]

Mass is the amount of charge of matter , the weight measure of force is the electrostatic force between two neutral matters .
The interwoven electrostatic N-force is weaker than the strong nuclear force , we call this force gravity .

This model makes a testable prediction. If gravity is actually an effect of the electromagnetic force, then gravitational waves should not exist. Instead, only electromagnetic waves could ever result from accelerating masses. However LIGO and VIRGO have detected gravitational waves many times, which falsifies your model. Of course, I expect you to either claim that LIGO and VIRGO are mistaken or part of some conspiracy.

Gravitational waves are neutral in charge , LIGO detected field fluctuations , you could assume these waves are electrostatic waves of the neutral variety agreeing with my theory .

[The Spoon]

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?

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 .

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

We could say relative time divided over absolute space .

Ah - so you have now introduced a+b. That wasn't in the original equation. What do you claim they represent?

a=Q1
b=Q2

So why change it to a and b?
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?

[Kryptid]

Gravitational waves are neutral in charge , LIGO detected field fluctuations , you could assume these waves are electrostatic waves of the neutral variety agreeing with my theory .

LIGO can't detect electrostatic waves. It isn't designed for that.

[guest39538]

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 .

[guest39538]

Gravitational waves are neutral in charge , LIGO detected field fluctuations , you could assume these waves are electrostatic waves of the neutral variety agreeing with my theory .

LIGO can't detect electrostatic waves. It isn't designed for that.

Unknowingly it is , its set up to detect gravitational waves which are electrostatic neutrally charges waves , otherwise undetectable , i'e aether fluctuations . 

[The Spoon]

Q isn't 1/t

Yes it is when Q1+Q2=Q3=1 or a+b=c=1 

Ah - so you have introduced Q3 . What is this please?

[guest39538]

Q isn't 1/t

Yes it is when Q1+Q2=Q3=1 or a+b=c=1 

Ah - so you have introduced Q3 . What is this please?

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 .

[The Spoon]

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 .

No you don't.
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.

[The Spoon]

Q isn't 1/t

Yes it is when Q1+Q2=Q3=1 or a+b=c=1 

Ah - so you have introduced Q3 . What is this please?

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 .

That is utter gobbledegook.as BCpointed out, you should stop using the word ostensible because it makes look foolish.

[guest39538]

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 .

[guest39538]

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 .

[guest39538]

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

[The Spoon]

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

Nonsense.

[The Spoon]

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 .

Not the way in which you use it.

[guest39538]

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

Nonsense.

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.

[Bored chemist]

.

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

No.
We realise that it can not

[Bored chemist]

Q isn't 1/t

Yes it is when Q1+Q2=Q3=1 or a+b=c=1 

But it is not the rest of the time.
So your equation is usually wrong.
So it's useless.

[The Spoon]

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

Nonsense.

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.

I ask again, explain this 'interwoven binary field' with evidence for its existence.

[The Spoon]

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 .

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.