[guest39538]

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 ∝

[guest39538]

Energy equals  

Then how come your computer works even though it was designed by people who do not think that is meaningful, never mind true?

Because a computer uses energy , it doesn't explain what energy is . 

[The Spoon]

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 ∝

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'?

[guest39538]

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 ∝

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'?

E = energy
Q=charge
Q1=neg charge
Q2=pos charge
M=mass
V=volume
t=time
∝=proportional

[The Spoon]

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 ∝

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'?

E = energy
Q=charge
Q1=neg charge
Q2=pos charge
M=mass
V=volume
t=time
∝=proportional

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?

[guest39538]

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 .

[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?

[guest39538]

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 .

[Bored chemist]

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 ∝

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'?

E = energy
Q=charge
Q1=neg charge
Q2=pos charge
M=mass
V=volume
t=time
∝=proportional

Energy equals  

Then how come your computer works even though it was designed by people who do not think that is meaningful, never mind true?

Because a computer uses energy , it doesn't explain what energy is . 

Yes, but to use it properly the designers have to know how energy works.
And you keep trying to pretend that everyone on the planet- apart from you- couldn't do that.
So, how did they make a computer that works?

Nobody contradicts me at all

Yes we do.
You are wrong.

E = Q =

OK, You can add Q1 and Q2 togetehr and that gives you a total charge.
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?

It's like the gallons and meters thing again.
(it really would help if you tried to understand that issue)

[The Spoon]

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 .

Evidence? An atoms volume is an exothermic process? Really? Why?
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.

[guest39538]

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 .

[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?

[The Spoon]

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 .

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.

[guest39538]

Evidence? An atoms volume is an exothermic process? Really? Why?

Because of transition  and spectral emissions ,  the atom tries to expand with the emission that creates the volume .

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

The strong nuclear force and binary of two opposite charges can occupy the same point , the binary force pulls back and stops the full expansion of the atom . The evidence of existence is opposite polarities .

How did you apply this to the 'weaker electrostatic force surrounding atoms'?

Q1+Q2=Q3

Explain this force and evidence for its existence.

Gravity , the magnitude of net charge and gross charge playing a role .

How did you apply it to the interior of a black hole and why did you?

Because a BH retains form , if there were no binary it would instantly expand out of existence .

How can you show this is relevant?In all cases detail your workings and explain in plain language.

I thought I was explaining in plain language .  Go for a walk, the space you are walking through has a  binary field of N . You are also N and are really small so you don't observe density although  there is a density . 

[guest39538]

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

[Bored chemist]

There's no multiplication in that

Yes there is

E = Q =

means Q = (Q1 +Q2) multiplied by 1/t  and then multiplied by 1/ V.

Again, all you have done is show that you can't even do basic algebra.

I've explained before that...

No
You have not explained anything.
You have made some absurd claims + produced scribble.

[Bored chemist]

it is ostensible .

You would look less dimwitted if you stopped misusing that word.

[guest39538]

There's no multiplication in that

Yes there is

E = Q =

means Q = (Q1 +Q2) multiplied by 1/t  and then multiplied by 1/ V.

Again, all you have done is show that you can't even do basic algebra.

I've explained before that...

No
You have not explained anything.
You have made some absurd claims + produced scribble.

ok

Q=/=

[Bored chemist]

Q isn't 1/t

[Kryptid]

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.