Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by antoine

  1. I get banned all the time from all over the internet. Sometimes ''they'' just don't like what a person has to say. In short , the 1 dimension of our visual universe is described by Minkowski interwoven space-time. xyz and time being relative ''components'' of the 1 ''dimension'' within that ''dimension''. However an outer observer will only observe 2 dimensions, i.e like the Sun looks flat.
  2. I know you did not ask me, but you will be lucky if anyone else answers you in my thread. There is in reality a one dimensional whole and the thing that we call dimensions , XYZt are imaginable lines in space and not of space. The answer is 1.
  3. Darkness is the absence of visible light is rather vague and not an exact definition. Darkness is the original view of localised objects is a much more accurate and scientific definition.
  4. Still not banned, huh! Ok, as you have not banned me I can only continue. I understand my notions are ''scary'' notions to the scientific community. It is not my fault that my notions are very axiom notions, I did not create these notions they are a part of the universe, I just observed this and tried to explain this. I do not even like the idea of my own notions, I do not want to mess anything up. BUT these notions are truthful so how am I suppose to ignore this?
  5. You win , being ignorant and ignoring me will make me see sense in that this forum is pointless for me . I request a ban and will not return as a sock. I have also requested all other science forums ban me that I am on, I have wasted my life trying to correct science with no gratitude or even proper listeners. Thank you for at least not being a-holes and allowing me to post on here, but will no discussion I am wasting my time . I wish you good day and good luck in the future, Regards Steve
  6. No answer is the validation of the truth.
  7. Excellent disproof of ''your'' assertion of Albert Einsteins thoughts on time dilation. I intentionally put that in that disproves my assertion the same it disproves Einstein, my notion is the exact same notion as time dilation. All observers anywhere in the Universe in any inertia reference frame experience 1.855e+43 tP's/second because c is constant. My clock is very accurate. In time dilation theory and the Lorentz length contraction, this is not accounted for, the shorter slower time being exactly that, a short measurement that has not travelled 1.855e+43 tP's/second . If we
  8. Your one liners are so tiresome, I do not observe you being objective over my precise logic .
  9. Of course I know that, you will tell me from my first post that I can't change the speed of time by counting fast or slow. I think you miss the point . Science says by counting fast or slow that time slows down or speeds up. Think about this and you will realise it is far from a gag. I can count therefore I am. added- ''I am'' an atomic clock detector I firstly count 9,192,631,770 while at relative rest I then count 9,192,631,000 while in relative motion I am counting at different speeds .
  10. Ok, let me remove the reverse psychology WOW! I have just discovered that I can slow down time and the experiment I performed shows I am correct. I started the experiment by looking for a way to measure time. I decided that I would count numbers to equal the amount of time passed. I firstly counted to 9,192,631,770 I then ran the experimental measurement several times 9,192,631,770 9,192,631,770 9,192,631,770 I then discovered that if I counted quicker, time was to speed up. I then discovered that if I counted slower , time was to slow down. p.s an identical silly
  11. IT is not silly at all . Read my second post and decide for yourself what you and science is doing incorrectly.
  12. LOl, I thought I would try some Reverse Psychology leads to scientific enlightenment. It becomes more serious if I apply the above and use the Caesium standard. Science is saying the exact same thing as above with time dilation. Not so funny or silly anymore hey?
  13. WOW! I have just discovered that I can slow down time and the experiment I performed shows I am correct. I started the experiment by looking for a way to measure time. I decided that I would count numbers to equal the amount of time passed. I firstly counted to ten, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 I then ran the experimental measurement several times 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 I then discovered that if I counted quicker, time was to speed up. I then discovered that if I counted slower , time was to slow down. Where do I report my discovery?
  14. Is the Proton and the electron really just two opposite point charges entangled? Is a wave-length only a wave because λ=Fµ ?
  15. Well I am sort of at the point where I think a point charge is proportional to the energy. E= Where E is energy and q is charge and S is entropy . However S could also be V (volume) and I think the result is the same. 1*q=1*E I think at this stage I probably understand the strong nuclear force more than mass being charge. It is quite interesting that if we was to attempt to split an atom by use of adding charge, in every instant we attempted it , the bond between electron and Proton becomes stronger on the attempt. In explanation imagine if we had a ray gun that could fire a pos
  16. Thank you for your links. So we are looking at the Neutron as an individual particle, however this particle must have attractive properties and energy properties i.e charge ? This brings us back to q1+q2=N , this Neutron particle being a sort of coupling of the electron and proton? Having both polarities contained observed as one. A sort of neutral inside a neutral? added- Ok I have thought some more and think I have the answer The answer is m² , you have to account for the inertia reference frame pull as well ? F(q²)=m² q²=m² F(q²)=G²=m²? added - the above fa
  17. Finally somebody brought the Neutron in the ''equation''. You are easy to speak too Farming Guy , thanks. I have seen atoms with my own eyes in my own experiment. I observe a dark circle surrounded by a light halo. I have never observed a Neutron thus far. Could you please point me in the right direction to the observation of the Neutron please? Are we saying Neutrons have the same charge as Neutrinos and are similar? Neutrinos are an obstruction to my thinking on charge=mass Strong nuclear force or atomic charge force being the only force we know exists in the atom. To
  18. I do see what you are saying, but if we do not know exactly what the force of gravity is, how do we know we are not creating a repulsive gravitational force? Meaning one of the forces used could be the anti gravity on a small scale, not knowing what gravity is could be giving us a false impression .
  19. You mention anti-gravity. I observe several already example of ''anti-gravity''. :Magnetic suspension :lifters :Thermodynamic expansion :Electrodynamics expansion I consider all the above processes are an anti to gravity, my favourite is the lifter. added- it the difference in lightning, sheet lightning being -e and fork lightning that hits the ground being +1e (i think)
  20. Yes I know this, in accordance with the inverse square law, I believe charge also as the same process and decreases in force over distance ?
  21. Inertia is the resistance to a change in motion, but I am sure you already know this. However, are you saying if we had two electrons divided by a distance, they would be attracted to each other by gravity but at point x stop because of the likewise charge having repulsive force? If this is true then one could only assume that mass was indeed something else unless the two electrons were some sort of opposite charge like the proton can be an anti-proton. Please excuse my limited knowledge when it comes to a positron and neutrinos etc, this is new knowledge to me which I am now trying to
  22. It is neither if I am being honest, I can't have an opinion about something unless I have already learnt about that something. Everyone keeps insisting I have not learnt, these are their words and thoughts, not mine. Of course I have learnt, that is why I have the ability to discuss the information. Do you think I could discuss charge and mass without knowing the content or some of the content involved? of course not , I have obviously therefore learnt about it. I know the answers of present information, mass is unanswered, so what is the harm in myself trying to workout what mass is or
  23. I have a very open mind. I have just returned from a weeks holiday/vacation, hopefully my head is clear at the moment and I hope you will keep engaging me. Most forums do not understand that I understand atomic structure, I understand that our measurements of charge can be A+B=N , electrically neutral. People then insist I do not understand , putting their own words into their own heads, their thoughts and imagination about me, a sort of Schizophrenia. Ambiguous reading of my work being a big part in their failure to understand me. I understand them loud and clear, I often have challe
  24. Maybe I was wrong about this forum and the members and moderators. My apologies, when I see the word ban I 'see' red because I do not believe in anyway that I am offensive. You asked, if you put two apples in a box, what colour are they , they are what colour we observe them to be. Maybe apples was a bad example. If we have an empty box and added 6 electrons and 6 protons to the box. How many individual charges will there be in the box? How many individual masses will there be in the box?
  • Create New...