Jump to content
Science Forums

Recommended Posts

:umno:

 

[math]\left(A+A\right)+\left(B+B\right) = C[/math]

[math]2A+2B=C[/math]

[math]2\left(A+B\right) = C[/math]

 

...and substituting:

 

[math]\left(A+B\right)=C[/math]

 

into the prior result gives you:

 

[math]2\left(C\right) \neq C[/math]

 

We all have zero clue as to what the heck you're doing with the charge. It's really not relevant to anything and until you, like, understand stuff, it'd prolly be a really good idea to forget about it.

 

 

Innumeracy and pseudoscience are often associated, in part because of the ease with which mathematical certainty can be invoked, to bludgeon the innumerate into a dumb acquiescence, :phones:

Buffy

I am  not being silly, earlier in this thread I explained how I explain atomic charge 3 different ways:

 

A+B=C

 

q1+q2=q3

 

-e+(+1e)=N or 0 

 

 

A=q1=-e

 

B=q2=+1e

 

C=N 0r 0

 

 

A and B are just a bit easier to type. 

 

 

The longer version 

 

 

(-e+-e)+(+1e)+(+1e)=N?

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

What will get you into trouble is the combination of these three things:     and then:     in conjunction with:   You don't get to claim ignorance to justify demanding others accept your novel theori

If anyone wants a laugh, take a read of the first few pages of this thread from another forum, in which I encountered this guy under the name "theorist-constant", before he was banned: http://www.scif

Good! You can read a dictionary! :cheer:   Unfortunately you've proven quite well that you do not know how to apply definitions to the real world and use-cases thereof. So:   :umno: Properties are n

Posted Images

...and there ya go! :cheer:

 

The only value that works for C (or N) is zero, which means....no charge!  :eek2:

Woo hoo!  :cheer:

 

Isn't math fun?

 

 

Mathematics is the science which uses easy words for hard ideas, :phones:

Buffy

OK, so it does not seem like anything changes if we add more mass equally to either side of the scales.  

 

 

So if we was to:

 

 

A+(B+ :cool:=ion=Cation?

 

 

(A+A)+( :cool:=ion=Anion?

 

Added - and in my scale illustration 

 

ΔN=ΔF?  where F is force

 

p.s I love maths 

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so it does not seem like anything changes if we add more mass equally to either side of the scales.

Mmm hmm.

 

So if we was to:

 

[*meaningless trivial math deleted*]

Well, you're the one who doesn't understand properties of objects, so I'm sure this makes sense to you.

 

Little problem: in the Standard Model, those objects with different charges, um, how do I put this in terms you'll understand... Well, let's say, they don't weigh the same.

 

That is, in a little bit more technical terms, unless you redefine reality, mixing and matching arbitrary attributes of objects isn't really an option.

 

p.s I love maths

Math is great! You should take some time to actually learn it! :cheer:

 

 

Math is like going to the gym for your brain. It sharpens your mind, :phones:

Buffy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm hmm.

 

 

Well, you're the one who doesn't understand properties of objects, so I'm sure this makes sense to you.

 

Little problem: in the Standard Model, those objects with different charges, um, how do I put this in terms you'll understand... Well, let's say, they don't weigh the same.

 

That is, in a little bit more technical terms, unless you redefine reality, mixing and matching arbitrary attributes of objects isn't really an option.

 

 

Math is great! You should take some time to actually learn it! :cheer:

 

 

Math is like going to the gym for your brain. It sharpens your mind, :phones:

Buffy

You assume I do not understand the properties of an object, I may interpret it differently and explain it differently , but I am sure I understand it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm hmm.

 

 

 

 

Little problem: in the Standard Model, those objects with different charges, um, how do I put this in terms you'll understand... Well, let's say, they don't weigh the same.

 

 

 

Indeed those objects with different charges have different mass, I should hope so.    

 

I can only conclude from our discussion and your answers, that if we increase the mass of an object, we are increasing the charge directly proportional and equal to the extra mass?  

 

>m=>q? 

 

and

 

N+1=>F=>m?

 

After working out my maths Buffy I now assume you know how to read this formula :ΔS=c0efbb5b854cd77c8e02a069d69d41b9.giffa6c4478446ce00a09bfc97aacd85373.gif75b097e23b9728e6ed81b479503ab3f3.gif=Δd05ca799ca0fb348ef276aa0b61a8e38.gif

 

 

c0efbb5b854cd77c8e02a069d69d41b9.gif=ΔkE=Δfa6c4478446ce00a09bfc97aacd85373.gif75b097e23b9728e6ed81b479503ab3f3.gif=Δd05ca799ca0fb348ef276aa0b61a8e38.gif

 

 

High frequency divided by entropy would be equal to change of excitement in an atom (kinetic energy),   which would be equal to change of charge over time which would be equal to a change in velocity over time which would be equal to change of radius over time?

 

Because (A+A)+B=ΔC=Δq=ΔF=Δm=ΔV

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites

You assume I do not understand the properties of an object, I may interpret it differently and explain it differently , but I am sure I understand it.

That's cuz you don't dear. To wit:

 

 

Indeed those objects with different charges have different mass, I should hope so.

So ya probably believe that protons and neutrons have radically different masses....

 

I can only conclude from our discussion and your answers, that if we increase the mass of an object, we are increasing the charge directly proportional to the extra mass?

If that's the *only* thing you can conclude from it, then you're really not thinking hard enough.

 

It is cute how you insist that there be a direct and "proportional" correlation between two properties because you say so.

 

Math is great for modeling stuff, especially stuff that doesn't exist in reality.

 

That's actually a *good* thing, but it unfortunately lets some very foolish people think they can wish stuff into existence just because they can write silly equations.

 

 

It's easy to identify people who can't count to ten. They're in front of you in the supermarket express lane. :phones:

Buffy

Link to post
Share on other sites

[* Dilute! Dilute! *]

I know what my equation means, it is not silly to me, it explains process in order from the photon making first contact with an object to the end product of gravity..  It is not silly things I am making up, this is things that science is telling me and how I have interpreted your information. 

I do understand all the parameters in the equation, they are not made up terms.  

 

Science is ''telling'' me that mass=charge and charge=mass

 

 

i.e directly proportional 

 

 

It is also not because I said so, it is a question believe it or not, I am asking the people with more knowledge than me a question.  If it is wrong , then I would like to know why it is wrong so I can move on.   It is not easy to all interpret things the same. But maths is a good language to use. I try to use simple formulas to ask a question. 

 

 

Can we start with this :ΔS=[/size]Δhf /S[/size]

 

 

Do you agree with this ? [/size]

 

 

p.s I am trying to tread carefully and not go overboard on the conclusions , they soon become speculation if I do that according to members.[/size]

Edited by Buffy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does science "tell" you that? Because it is not correct.

It says it every time I get answers from forum members, this is what I am interpreting people are saying to me. 

 

The answers in this thread are saying that to me.  Maybe we have a misunderstanding to what I mean by directly proportional .  Actually now you  mention it, I am not too sure what I mean by that.

 

 

I mean 0+1=1   if we add 1 mass we add 1 charge, 

 

m=q

 

Adding 1 would always be proportional to adding +1e or -e

 

That what I mean anyway by the statement :  That the charge is directly proportional to the mass  -e+-e=m*2

 

(-e+-e)+(+1e)=m*3

 

 

and so on.....

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what my equation means, it is not silly to me, it explains process in order from the photon making first contact with an object to the end product of gravity..

I think that's a fair statement. You genuinely believe that your equation says something about a lot of unrelated things.

 

It is not silly things I am making up,

Well, honestly, yes it is.

 

this is things that science is telling me...

Well science isn't telling you that, but I'm sure something inside your head is:

 

...and how I have interpreted your information.

Of course, you've misinterpreted just about everything you've talked about so far.

 

I do understand all the parameters in the equation, they are not made up terms.

Well, if you'd bothered to understand anything about my last post, you'd have gotten an inkling that your problem isn't the math so much as mapping it on to stuff that just doesn't exist in our particular universe.

 

Maybe you should move to the universe where mass is indeed proportional to charge. You certainly don't seem happy in ours where that isn't the case.

 

So to reiterate:

 

Science is ''telling'' me that mass=charge and charge=mass i.e directly proportional

Science says no such thing, at least in our universe.

 

Any math you do might be correct--and it's not terribly good dear--but if the equations you write don't obey the laws of physics in our universe, they're not really proof of anything.

 

It is also not because I said so, it is a question believe it or not, I am asking the people with more knowledge than me a question.  If it is wrong , then I would like to know why it is wrong so I can move on.   It is not easy to all interpret things the same. But maths is a good language to use. I try to use simple formulas to ask a question.

The problem here of course is I keep telling you the answer--which to reiterate, because it seems you need to hear something a whole bunch of times to even acknowledge it--is that your abstract math has no actual mapping onto the real world.

 

Or in other words, no, charge is not proportional to mass.

 

This is so wrong, that it basically proves that both you don't understand anything, but also that you don't want to.

 

 

Can we start with this:

No need to start with that since it's wrong.

 

Maybe induction would help?

[math]Proton Mass = 2000 \times Electron Mass[/math]

[math]Proton Charge = - Electron Charge[/math]

 

Do those equations appear to show any correlation at all?

 

 

Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves, :phones:

Buffy

Link to post
Share on other sites

It says it every time I get answers from forum members, this is what I am interpreting people are saying to me. 

 

The answers in this thread are saying that to me.  Maybe we have a misunderstanding to what I mean by directly proportional .  Actually now you  mention it, I am not too sure what I mean by that.

 

 

I mean 0+1=1   if we add 1 mass we add 1 charge, 

 

m=q

 

Adding 1 would always be proportional to adding +1e or -e

 

That what I mean anyway by the statement :  That the charge is directly proportional to the mass  -e+-e=m*2

 

(-e+-e)+(+1e)=m*3

 

 

and so on.....

 

None of this makes any sense to me. If it makes sense to you, then fine, but it's pointless discussing it because you obviously don't use the same language as scientists do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of this makes any sense to me. If it makes sense to you, then fine, but it's pointless discussing it because you obviously don't use the same language as scientists do.

Huh? if we have an empty box, and place in the box 1 red apple, 

 

we have red once and apple once

 

 

Now if we place two red apples in the box, we  have 2 apples and two red

 

 

Now if we place 3 electrons in the box, we have 3 electron masses and 3 neg charges in the box 

 

How is that not equal and directly proportional?

Edited by antoine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes 1=1?

 

1 proton mass = 1 proton charge

 

1 elephant = 1 mouse

1 rock = 1 cup of tea

1 Einstein = 1 idiot

 

I mean, like, they're ALL ONES, amirite?

 

 

It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt, :phones:

Buffy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...