• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I hope God saves the Earth from heat death

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I don't need to look clever , my work is clever and based on real time physics . All my work is based on past science and physics...

You don't appear to know anything at all about physics. Even the most basic, school level things seem to be a mystery to you.
Scientists can't challenge work that involves their work and corrections of their work .

It's actually easy to challenge your claims because they are mostly meaningless and devoid of evidence or any hint of reasoning. The only problem is that you don't even know enough to understand why it's so obviously wrong - and you've invested 12 years producing it, so it's only human nature to cling to it.
Besides my 1 over time equation works...

What equation? The one on the other thread just told us that 1 = 1 (i.e. meaningless). What do you mean by works? What testable predictions does it make, that are different from standard science? How many experiments have you done that confirm those predictions? How can if be falsified?
I have used maths in explaining the initial big bang energy .

So post it. Nothing you've posted to date explains anything.
 

TheBrokenSoul

Active Member
You don't appear to know anything at all about physics. Even the most basic, school level things seem to be a mystery to you.

You speak false tongue , I could not discuss physics if I didn't know the physics knowledge that exists prior . How could I discuss the Big bang for example or protons and electrons ?




What equation? The one on the other thread just told us that 1 = 1 (i.e. meaningless). What do you mean by works? What testable predictions does it make, that are different from standard science? How many experiments have you done that confirm those predictions? How can if be falsified?


So post it. Nothing you've posted to date explains anything.


The equation didn't say 1=1 at all , that is more false tongue and not speak truth like me .

The equation said half plus half times half plus half is equal to 1/t which is the 5 dimensions of xyz , time and space-time energy , known as a volume .

This real time physics does not require predictions or any nonsense adding to it , it simply explains how the initial high dense state formed of the Big Bang theory and where the Big Bang required the energy from for the expansion of the 5 dimensions of space-time and space-time energy .

In my equation I express volume V

Before a high dense state formation .

Micro bang energy = 0.5/V = q1 /V = 0 density

Micro bang energy = 0.5/V = q2/V = 0 density



Dense state formation , simultaneously at the same location = 0.5+0.5/V = q1+q2/V = density 1 = 1 /t

Then finally expansion energy

(0.5+0.5/V)(0.5/V+0.5/V)=1/t

Which states the solid state stable particle times the unstable micro bang energy
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I don't need to look clever , my work is clever and based on real time physics . All my work is based on past science and physics , as my abstract in my journal says , I have made extensive discourse to reach the correct conclusions. About 12 years to be precise to create this advancement .

Scientists can't challenge work that involves their work and corrections of their work .

P.s I am saving science in some areas from looking stupid , it is more about the correct undertsanding of their own work .
So, show me how much you know about terms you use to look clever.

Tensors, for instance. Which are not such a difficult concept.

So, why did you use it? Do you understand it?

Ciao

- viole
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Yes there is some miracles and in a n-dimensional universe there is n-possibilities . Even alien life may be godly compared to our simple selves .
So, you are a theist. Right? I would appreciate it if you confirm, because that would explain a lot.

Ciao

- viole
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You speak false tongue , I could not discuss physics if I didn't know the physics knowledge that exists prior .

You're not discussing physics. You don't understand physics, you are just using some of the words from physics without understanding.
The equation didn't say 1=1 at all , that is more false tongue and not speak truth like me .

It did last time I saw it, see >this post<.
This real time physics does not require predictions or any nonsense adding to it...

Which just proves my point that you have no understanding at all of physics. The only way we know a theory is right (or wrong) is by testing its predictions.
Before a high dense state formation .

Micro bang energy = 0.5/V = q1 /V = 0 density

Micro bang energy = 0.5/V = q2/V = 0 density

This says that q1 and q2 are both 0.5 and the V is infinite, because that's the only way in which 0.5/V can equal 0.
Dense state formation , simultaneously at the same location = 0.5+0.5/V = q1+q2/V = density 1 = 1 /t

Since you've made V infinite this time (and 0.5 = q1), this now says that 0.5 = 1, so now we have a contradiction. The second equality just makes t a constant t = 1.
(0.5+0.5/V)(0.5/V+0.5/V)=1/t
Not content with one contradiction, we now have two. This says 0 = 1, because you've made V infinite, the second bracket is zero, so the whole left-hand side is zero, and t = 1, so the right-hand side is 1.

It seems simple algebra is totally beyond you, as well as physics. :rolleyes:
 

TheBrokenSoul

Active Member
You're not discussing physics. You don't understand physics, you are just using some of the words from physics without understanding.


It did last time I saw it, see >this post<.


Which just proves my point that you have no understanding at all of physics. The only way we know a theory is right (or wrong) is by testing its predictions.


This says that q1 and q2 are both 0.5 and the V is infinite, because that's the only way in which 0.5/V can equal 0.


Since you've made V infinite this time (and 0.5 = q1), this now says that 0.5 = 1, so now we have a contradiction. The second equality just makes t a constant t = 1.

Not content with one contradiction, we now have two. This says 0 = 1, because you've made V infinite, the second bracket is zero, so the whole left-hand side is zero, and t = 1, so the right-hand side is 1.

It seems simple algebra is totally beyond you, as well as physics. :rolleyes:

You are being very obtuse .

V doesn't have to be necessarily infinite because the phyisics of the universe without the formed 5 dimensions of space-time and space-time energy does not allow for a micro-bang mono-pole to exist without its opposite sign manifesting simultaneously at the same position (x0,y0,z0,)

In a formed 5 dimensional single manifold the mono-poles are contained and the physics allows for their existence as a semi-stable state particle .

Micro bangs are simply hf/F , high frequency divided by force . It is logical that with no bond the micro bang energy would simply be spread sparesly out to 0 density .

Football is a game of two halves , but it takes two halves to make one field and if you want the grass grow you have to add some water . Any football fields need fans , so lets pack the stadium with fans and watch them vanish as they leave the stadium .
 
Last edited:

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You are being very obtuse .

No, I precisely followed the formulas you posted. As I said, you don't seem to understand basic algebra.
V doesn't have to be necessarily infinite because the phyisics of the universe without the formed 5 dimensions of space-time and space-time energy does not allow for a micro-bang mono-pole to exist without its opposite sign manifesting simultaneously at the same position (x0,y0,z0,)

In a formed 5 dimensional single manifold the mono-poles are contained and the physics allows for their existence as a semi-stable state particle .

Micro bangs are simply hf/F , high frequency divided by force . It is logical that with no bond the micro bang energy would simply be spread sparesly out to 0 density .

More from the random word generator. :rolleyes:
 

TheBrokenSoul

Active Member
No, I precisely followed the formulas you posted. As I said, you don't seem to understand basic algebra.


More from the random word generator. :rolleyes:
No, I precisely followed the formulas you posted. As I said, you don't seem to understand basic algebra.


More from the random word generator. :rolleyes:
Well I am thinking and that is what my thoughts tell me to write , although that is my own voice I hear in my head, this new information comes from somewhere , I beleive I am clever because I was gifted thought .

My dear sir , who am I to argue with universal thoughts

 

TheBrokenSoul

Active Member
You haven't even said what the question was. And it doesn't change the fact that the only thing your last set of equations said was that 0.5 = 1 and 0 =1.


So 1 = 1 and 1*1 = 1. Perhaps you should alert the major mathematics journals of your ground-breaking discoveries...
No , the visual universe is eqaul to 1 over time , a 5 dimensional interwoven single manifold of xyz , time and energy .

Not only does my equation give the answer , it is the ''god equation'' that also explains the physical process .

(0.5+0.5/V) demonstrates the process and dependency of two opposite signed poles converging to form a stable volume

(0.5/V+0.5/V) demonstrates the independence of each signed opposite pole and the inabilty to form a stable volume


It is very elegant and explains in totalism the process before the big bang and how the dense state was formed .


0.5 is equal to half the components required to form a stable particle and/or quantum field .

Micro bangs are electrostatic charges with opposite signed poles .

We can't call a single mono-pole charge 1 before the big bang because they annihilate .

We don't get 1 unless we add the two halves together .

And we can't expand 1 unless we times the energy

Look at it this way , if you add a drip of water to a drip of water what happens ?

They converge perfectly to form a singularity but the first drip has now expanded in volume . Basic physics and chemistry .
 
Last edited:

TheBrokenSoul

Active Member
Jesus entered the temple to challenge the scientists that crucified him in speech prior , before he asked the Lord for help in wisdom .

Jesus explained '' In the beginning there was no beginning because there was never or can be the absence of space . Our lord created light from each hand , a blue light for good and a red light for evil . The Lord then threw the light into space where good and evil didn't join . The lord was wise and knew this couldn't be , so again he said for a second time , ''let there be light'' and held is hands together as if in prayer . Good and evil joined together for the first time and a beautiful universe was born ''.

Any scientist want to argue this ?
 

TheBrokenSoul

Active Member
So, show me how much you know about terms you use to look clever.

Tensors, for instance. Which are not such a difficult concept.

So, why did you use it? Do you understand it?

Ciao

- viole
Are you tense right now ? We are not talking about that sort of tension .
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No , the visual universe is eqaul to 1 over time...

The quantity 1/t is a specific kind of physical measurement, with units 1/s, so to say that the visual universe is equal to it makes no sense. You might argue that some aspect (which would have to have the same units) of it is equal to 1/t, but not the whole thing.
Not only does my equation give the answer , it is the ''god equation'' that also explains the physical process .

'It' doesn't explain anything. In fact you gave different equations this time to the previous time (0.5=1 and 0=1 versus 1=1 and 1*1=1). They are meaningless identities or contradictions.

You don't seem to get what an equation in physics is even for. Take a genuine one like F=ma (force = mass times acceleration). Firstly, it's testable. You can take lots of objects, with know masses, subject them to known forces and see if it holds. Once you've established some confidence in it, it is useful. If you know two of the quantities in a physical system, you can calculate the third, so if you want to accelerate an object with a know mass, at some particular rate, you know how much force you'll need to do so.

If you add in Newton's gravitation law, F = GmM/r^2, (F is the force, G is a constant, m and M are two masses, and r is the distance between them) then you can deduce why the acceleration due to gravity is independent of the mass of the object being accelerated.

If you then understand that force, velocity, and acceleration, are vectors (they have direction, as well as value) you can explain orbits. Again, all of this is testable, useful in making predictions, and has the ability to explain what we observe.
(0.5+0.5/V) demonstrates the process and dependency of two opposite signed poles converging to form a stable volume

(0.5/V+0.5/V) demonstrates the independence of each signed opposite pole and the inabilty to form a stable volume


It is very elegant and explains in totalism the process before the big bang and how the dense state was formed .


0.5 is equal to half the components required to form a stable particle and/or quantum field .

Micro bangs are electrostatic charges with opposite signed poles .

We can't call a single mono-pole charge 1 before the big bang because they annihilate .

We don't get 1 unless we add the two halves together .

And we can't expand 1 unless we times the energy

Word salad.
Look at it this way , if you add a drip of water to a drip of water what happens ?

They converge perfectly to form a singularity...

So you don't know what singularity means either. :rolleyes:
 
Top