Looking for honest peer !

Back on ignore .

 

lol

 

I can't make the math any more simple than this

 

Way above my paygrade this is a great thread

I'm intrigued by wave particle duality I'm still stuck that the Earth is flat

 

Plus que and Montesquieu / DT look equal to zero

 

I'm sorry to interrupt and I don't mean to derail but I would love to talk about aerodynamics with somebody someday

arguing what reality really is it's just too much for me I can't spend the time doing that because I know I'll never figure it out

 

I don't mind discussing aerodynamics , is there anything in particular you want to discuss ?

 

Wave particle duality is observer affect , the earths roundness can be observed when the Earths shadow is cast on the moon , the curved silhouette shadow you observe is the earth . Isn't that cool ?

 

If you could only get the units to match......

 

I'm still not following you , what do you mean ?

It works for my theory ...

How about D for density ,

D / R^n = 0D ?

or

D(Q) / R^n = 0D ?

 

Do you understand that the spatial singularity interior field is quite dense ?

If (-Q) + (+Q) / t = D1

Then 1E³ / t = (>D / R^n) / t

 

The SI units on both sides of an equation should match.

 

I don't understand you at all ! My math explains a process , if I want to distribute a point charge density to an unspecified volume of real coordinate space I'd use what I've been using to explain the process as my internet search says to use . It says I can use Q for charge and it says I can use R^n for an unspecified volume of real coordinate space . I even provided the coordinates ''breakdown' .

I've asked you before what you'd use ? I could just say (hf / v) / t or (hf / S) /t but that is not specific enough .

 

It really is quite simple. If you have an equation like:

Stuff on this side of the equals sign = Stuff on that side of the equals sign

or

Stuff on this side of the greater than sign > Stuff on that side of the greater than sign

Then those things should have the same units

So.....

Distance travelled in a period of time (measured in metres) = Speed (measured in metres per second) * Time (measured in seconds)

Looking only at the units....

m = (m/s) * s

 

I'll do the full coordinates if it helps ?

D1 / ({x1,x2,...,xn}{y1,y2,...,yn}{z1,z2,...,zn} + {-x1,-x2,...,-xn}{-y1,-y2,...,-yn}{-z1,-z2,...,-zn} ) /t = D0 / t


I don't need m/s for this , I already know the process happens at the speed of c.

 

The m/s was an example.

One of the reasons why it is clear that your mathematics is nonsense is that the units on each side of the equation do not match.

IMO there are two main reasons for this, you lack the skill to transfer your theory into intelligible mathematics, and the theory you are attempting to transfer is in any case gibberish.

Why are you wasting your time attempting to get help on a politics forum of all things ? Why not go to one of the many physics forums, or better yet, contact prominent physicists directly ?

 

Firstly my theory is not gibberish , it uses many present facts , secondly this is a science forum section where I'd expect to find a clever physicist to maybe help me with the maths . I've tried a maths forum and they had no answer .

 

Yes, your theory is gibberish.

You may find a "clever physicist" here but I would expect them to be relatively thin on the ground compared to a dedicated science, or better yet a physics forum.

That said, asking here for a physicist to help you with your maths is the equivalent to going to moneysavingforums in an attempt to find a professional translator to translate "Flibble flobble flurble flurble" from English into French.

 

Ok, you keep saying my theory is gibberish , how about we go through some of the basics of my theory ?

True or false : In the following diagram the likewise positive charges will expand away from each other ?

This is where now , you runaway or avoid discussion .