Looking for honest peer !

Any time you have to resort to saying 1/2 = 0, something has gone wrong, either in the maths, in the original premise or both. In your case, I'm confident in saying both.

 

No, it is exactly precise to my theory . I have added an edit to the page now though .



I'm on page 16 now



16 pages all relative to before any ''big bang'' event . Page 17 starts the discussion of the ''big bang'' event

I'll do the next section then stop there to edit what I've wrote so far .

Then I'll either give up or don't know . There's probably at least 50 pages in total to write .

 

Maybe I should become a politician and do some politics instead of science !

 

Nope ! I've decided I am a brilliant theoretical physicist and I need to continue . I ''tear'' present thinking apart , I'm better than ''them'' at thinking about physics .



v(E) = F<E = c

 

Page 17

Binary energy particle expansion ( Singularity expansion)
​

Previously we discussed the instantaneous formation of a binary energy particle namely the N-field particle , giving it an identity of one . In this section we'll now consider the physics and what affect if any , the newly formed singularity would have on the prior discussed , micro bang energy.

In consideration of the proposed pre-existing micro bang energy. The Universe Inside and Out implies that the first formed N-field particle was the first formed mass and in addition , the start of meaningful time .

We already know by our present physical laws that both -Q and +Q charge are attracted to neutral charge and vice versus neutral charge is attracted to -Q or +Q charge .

In consideration of this , the Universe Inside and Out proposes with evidential support and agreeing information of present physical laws on electrical charge , that the pre-existing micro bang energy :

-Q / R^n and +Q / R^n ,

Would indeed be relatively attracted to the singularity point , our first formed universal mass and beginning of meaningful time .


The force of attraction being F = (-Q)+ (+Q)/ t

 

Page 18

Binary energy particle expansion ( Singularity expansion)
​

In further consideration of the present Big Bang Theory , that suggests the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state but gives no origin reason(s) of how this high-density , high -temperature state , manifested, as previously mentioned on page 8 .

One could assume that the formed identity of one and the prior thoughts on the attraction of the -Q and +Q micro bang energy to the singularity of one , would indeed cause the singularity of one to become a more dense and higher temperature state .

The proposed pre-existing micro bang energy being a gain to the prior mentioned interwoven 5 dimensional manifold of XYZE and entropy (S) .

The process gain and loss described in a genralisation maths sense :

Delta XYZE ∝ Delta S

Delta S = Delta E

Delta E = (1E³/R^n)/t



How is my theory not good ?

 

Page 19

Binary energy particle expansion ( Singularity expansion) ​

In continuation of the explanation of the binary energy particle expansion , again we'll be considering the micro bang process relative to the binary energy particle process .
It is concluded that there is a significant difference in these two processes and in affect of this , it is concluded that there is a difference in the way that the energy is divided by a lesser energy , R^n real coordinate space , when considering the formed binary .

In respect to this , The Universe Inside Out recalls the prior information of the binary energy particle and considers the binary bond . In consideration of this it is concluded that the binary energy particle would have the mechanism to bond with the centripetal flow of micro bang energy . Which as a consequent , increases the magnitude and density of the binary energy particle .

As demonstrated on page 17 , both -Q and +Q are attracted to the newly formed 5 dimensional manifold . This force of attraction being the bond that interwoves the centripetal flow of micro bang energy with the 5 dimensional manifold .

 

Ok , I have some maths you should hopefully understand

 

For goodness sake, you can't even get that bit right, the equals sign is redundant.....

 

What ?

It's correct ....

 

That is total nonsense.

You are just copying and pasting things you don't understand. That doesn't impress anyone but it does make you look ridiculous.

 

I understand my own theory and math , thank you !

I know what I'm talking about .

 

Physics , easy malarkey....

Contents:
​

⦁ Introduction : page 2-3
⦁ Absolute Newtonian space : pages 4-9
⦁ Micro bang theory (Point charge temporal transition to lower energy state points) : pages 10-14
⦁ Binary energy particle (A quantum singularity) : pages 15-19
⦁ Binary energy particle expansion ( Singularity expansion) : pages 20-24
⦁ The n-field theory (The interior field matter of a binary expansion)
⦁ The N-field theory (Atomic matter)
⦁ The gravity mechanism
⦁ The nature of light
⦁ The meaning of time

The n-field theory section , the next section to write , explains space-time , the movable in the immovable . The interwoven fabric of -Q & +Q or negative energy and positive energy if you prefer ........

 

numerous people have clearly showed you have no ****ing idea what you're talking about. One poster even pointed out your "maths" are complete gibberish. The units in your equations don't match. They basically are saying, height squared divided by 25 kelvin equals sears tower.

 

Incorrect , people have not shown I am incorrect at all . In fact they haven't even discussed my theory or attempted to demonstrate my postulates are false .

Obviously you also can't do math formula ...

Are you saying that 1 / >1 = <1 is incorrect ?

 

you of course, know that they have.

because your theories are retarded bastardizations of the English language.

I'm saying what others have said. Your maths are made up nonsense. You are squaring height, dividing it by temperature, and concluding that it's a football stadium.

It's retarded, and you are a very obvious troll.

 

You're the actual troll and presenting no meaningful argument other than gibberish . You have also lied , nobody has shown me incorrect , you are full of beans .

I already know 1 / >1 = <1 , I've had that confirmed elsewhere...therefore confirming my maths correct.

 

So the last thing you want is honest "peer review". You've had plenty.

 

A mono

No , I don't believe you're being honest and discussing without bias .

A discussion is 2 ways , not one way , your way .

I'll start with a question , let's see if you can discuss . Name one mechanism that would stop a mono-pole point charge from a transition to lower state energy levels in a void space ?

 

I'm an expert at math and physics. You know nothing.

I would bet you couldn't get through the first chapter of a high school algebra book.

Try to do real math from a real math book.

 

So again you've avoided having the discussion I offered you , replying with narcissistic tendencies and an attempt at neurological control and the belittle of me .


How about you discuss and answer the question ?

Don't you know the answer with all your claimed academics ?

 

You haven't posted anything but nonsense.

Yes, 1 / something greater than one is less than one. But that isn't how you write it. You just made up your own notion to make a obvious point.

Congratulations! You understand 5th grade math.

 

you of course know all of this is false.

complete gibberish

 

No I didn't ! Thank you for a genuine honest answer .

So can we call 1 , a point charge and label it -Q to represent 1 negative point charge ?

-Q / ????