Looking for honest peer !

I'm not trying to do anything , I am dividing a point charge by a volume of space that is unspecified . I could just say Q / V where V is volume but then that would have to be specified .

Quite clearly you don't know what you're talking about .

Additionally I provided the force involved F<E

 

You keep saying the units don't match , what on earth are you talking about ? It's my theory so the units are whatever I say they mean in my theory , not what you to tell me they aren't ....Isn't your brain capable of learning new information ?

1 / >1 = <1 yes or no ?

Bare in mind , people have agreed this is correct ...

 

The other way around , science nonsense was pointed out the first page by me , period !

 

Only a naive moron would believe in such an outlandish and absurd claim as space and time is interwoven to form a space fabric namely space-time . I rest my case ....

An objective scientist would believe and be justified in believing an interwoven field of -Q and +Q occupies absolute space . They would also look for a negative energy equation

-0.5Q + 0.5Q = 0Q

 

When did science go wrong ?

When Albert Einstein turned reality into fantasy and claimed time speeds up and time slows down . The most hilarious theory and mediocre minded thing I've ever read .



In the above diagram you see an example of the time slowing down thought. The top clocks timing is running slower than the bottom clocks timing .


Now a mediocre mind might think that time slowed down ....

The next thing is space and time an interwoven fabric

E=mc² meaningless and not what energy is mass times a speed squared is a force .

The speed of light and photons

Then we think about the big bang theory , ahahaah , incomplete fantasy

 

Nada , you're full of beans robot ....You've shown no falsity in my entire theory . My theory uses simple law of forces and the laws of the Universe . I've just demonstrated no time dilation , you're a foolish robot .



E in bold , is an electrical field to those who don't know . An E not in bold is energy .

 

so not only do you not know physics, but you also don't know what spamming is, lol

 

You obviously don't know what a discussion is . Do you understand spectral emissions ? explain it !

 

There's nothing to discuss. This is page 13. Your bullshit was shown to be abject nonsense on page 1. Your equations were shown to be complete gibberish, on page one.

 

Here we go again ! Do you have some sort of mental disorder ? It is showing .

Correct this is page 13 and nobody has provided any argument to the contrary of my theory . All you are doing is presenting gibberish saying that I'm saying gibberish ! You are not presenting no argument ..

Anyway if you continue to post how you are posting , I'll just choose to ignore you .

If you don't know about spectral emissions you could just say , you don't know !

 

on page one, it was quite clearly explained to you that your "theories" were gibberish, and your "maths" nonsensical. It was explained in great detail why that is. Your units do not match in your equations. You are trying to divide baseball by height and have it equal temperature.

 

Then I asked for help to create the correct math which you/they was unable to provide . Additionally I asked what was meant by your units don't match .

You're ignoring my questions and request for help .

Can I use Q to represent a point charge ?

And what can I use for an unspecified volume of real coordinate space ?

If I'm explaining it wrong in maths , then you explain it !

I want to explain one point charge distributing into an unspecified volume of real coordinate space where the given identity of one diminishes out of existence .

One point charge divided by one unspecified volume of real coordinate space .

GO , fire away , what is the maths ?

added - Explain a density with an identity of one

density 1 / > vol = < density

Go !

 

All of this was addressed on page 1. You were advised to go and take a basic physics course, or read a textbook.

You are trolling, so you wont actually do that.

 

I'm not aware of any equation that addresses this , so please provide a link ?

I don't see where it was addressed on page one , please quote ?

 

No

 

Because you can't , because it hasn't been addressed at all .

Why bother to post if you're not willing to discuss or address issues ?

Open science is not closed science !

 

All addressed on page one. You were shown why your “math” is gibberish. By numerous people. You were advised to take a basic college level intro to physics.

 

I was shown my maths is gibberish ! I will gladly accept that but can you show my theory and notions are gibberish ?

No you can't !

So again I request for help with the maths and I'll even explain it more in conventional terms .

I am considering zero point energy (ZPE) and considering an energy manifesting at this given point .

What can we call this manifested point energy ?

Could we possibly call it a point charge ?

In electrical engineering, it is also common to use the ampere-hour (Ah); in physics and chemistry, it is common to use the elementary charge (e as a unit). Chemistry also uses the Faraday constant as the charge on a mole of electrons. The symbol Q often denotes charge.

So what is your argument why I can't use Q ?

 

Yes. That was done in page one. You need math to support your “theories”. You can’t do math, so your “theories” remain nonsense. As others have explained, they fly in the face of demonstrated and proven physics.

 

I am considering zero point energy (ZPE) and considering an energy manifesting at this given point .

What can we call this manifested point energy ?

Could we possibly call it a point charge ?

In electrical engineering, it is also common to use the ampere-hour (Ah); in physics and chemistry, it is common to use the elementary charge (e as a unit). Chemistry also uses the Faraday constant as the charge on a mole of electrons. The symbol Q often denotes charge.

So what is your argument why I can't use Q ?

 

All addressed already. Please, stop trolling. If you are serious about any of this (everyone knows you are not) then go back to school. Start with entry level college physics and work your way up from there.

 

No, it as not been addressed !

I'm asking you a direct question , I'll ask again , what is your argument against my use of Q for an electrical charge when all my research on the internet says Q is representative of charge ?

Are you saying all this information is false and inaccurate ?

 

All addressed already. Please, stop trolling. If you are serious about any of this (everyone knows you are not) then go back to school. Start with entry level college physics and work your way up from there.

 

Again you are trying to wind me up !

Good bye ...I'll await for more sensible conversation .

 

You don’t want a sensible conversation. You were told what you needed to do on page 1. Everyone who has engaged with you knows you aren’t actually serious about any of this.