The Architekt

yes I have been told this already, but this still does not change the fact on whom I replied to.. I replied to someone named Zapatos... I though they were looking at the mess of my other post.... Uhhh forget this, now I am confused on whom is who.....

THANKS FOR HINTING IN MY ACCUSATIONS BEING TRUE! I LOVE HONESTY WHEN I SEE SEE IT!

WELL YES IT IS BECAUSE I WAS NOT REPLYING TO YOU SIR..... Sorry if you disagree, but there is already a note warning members on secrecy insults.... This already gave it away, plus I knew already about this others have told me too I am not the only one here. you can see the note here---> http://www.sciencefo...ck/page__st__20 You can go ahead and ban me if you choose, I do not like the fact that I have been classified as a meson that is unpredictable.... People should have the right to choose which names they go by, I see a control issue here like a childish game.... WELL YES IT IS BECAUSE I WAS NOT REPLYING TO YOU SIR..... Sorry if you disagree, but there is already a note warning members on secrecy insults.... This already gave it away, plus I knew already about this others have told me too I am not the only one here. you can see the note here---> http://www.sciencefo...ck/page__st__20 You can go ahead and ban me if you choose, I do not like the fact that I have been classified as a meson that is unpredictable.... People should have the right to choose which names they go by, I see a control issue here like a childish game....

Of coarse not most primates keep to themselves right>>>???? but then again labels are labels, so perhaps something about this thread is true.....

I think the "younger" generation would love it! COOL! Don't you think?????

yes you are correct, this is what is happening to me and others. Its in this post: http://www.sciencefo...127#entry690127 a senior member also posted something about how what I said made no sense at all,. I don't think it was this senior member though, because what I had placed about a center of mass was in accordance of it being a location only as "they stated."but this thread in general is a good example, I lost the entire interest and became sick to my stomach...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson All mesons are unstable, with the longest-lived lasting for only a few hundredths of a microsecond. This forum profiles people too? WOW! You guys really need to grow up! Stop acting like punks in the streets with gang symbols and other junk to suggest they are separatist, start acting like thinkers.... .

No, what I am saying is the people 'members" here are using other members profile to answer my questions I know this already. Yes I know people have jobs and at times others needs to continue a "forum's" responses because their are way to many members here. BUT I take things literally and take advice from those whom told me " let others know you are not a scientist." When I admit this and say I may be wrong, or I do not know how to explain this, these members "using other's profiles" tell me they do not understand " anything" I say, call me a kid, tell me I may be trolling and etc... Its their avoidance to say: "Science at this time in our evolution, does not know how to create something like this, or we just do not know how to answer your question at this time because science does not know the answer. They should tell the truth, scientist are the BRAIN'S OF THIS WORLD, we look up to them. They should act like thinkers with solutions, not people whom are concerned with the human ego and a great public status, thats government and religion! No, anyone could join, what I am saying is that members should not use other members profiles and or avatars to follow up on threads from either yesterday, or an hour ago or etc... Or at lease, have something in common with the members profiles they are using, lots of ""Schizophrenia""" here! Reminds me of corruption, fakeness and politics....... Sickening! No, its people "using" other people's member profiles.... I think you know what I am talking about....

So, then, basically it is impossible to connect the electron to the center of mass then right? WHY NOT JUST SAY THIS..... I have tried to explain why I do understand your question. DID YOU MEAN I have tried to explain why I do ""not"" understand your question. I guess your not perfect either,,, please let others know this, otherwise they will blame me again.

why do other members answer for other members???? Opps, let me define this... I place up a post, a member answers, I reply thinking it is this member I am talking too, then someone else hi jacks this members answer to me and starts accusing me of not making sense and saying that i need to take a breath or something.... It is more than obvious this is happening, I see it all over the threads.. This should not be allowed at all to happen as it ruins good people to people relations. This seems more politics than science to me.....

YOU WANNA KNOW WHY IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE???????? BECAUSE I AM TALKING TO MULTIPLE PEOPLE WHOM SEEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT'S WHY!

This means science has no clue about the shape, color, nor size of anything then? How then can time be measured if not from the point of origin? You say: The total mass of the electrons in the object will be about 1/2000 of the mass of the object. The mass of the electron is 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms (from Google) And both of those statements will be true no matter where the centre of gravity of the object is. And I am supposed say, "Like WOW! Ok" and press on from their? You have to be joking right???? Language barrier definetly: Reason.. I like to know things about rocks, and the reason why the above is true. I have known this for some time, by the way. If nature is the same such as the center of gravity for every object,then this world is predicated on nothingness, and science is wrong about everything then. The reason for this is because how then can time be measured if not from the point of origin?

you ask me a question: you assemble it to your own liking: you get on my case because you don't agree with the "conversation you are having with yourself Its like that here I am noticing.... WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH MY OP??? This is about rocks and mass....simple stuff.

thanks, but why does the wave function " preach" about how it can find the electron? From what I know it does so by a squaring some unit used in the wave function itself, or something like that. Anyway the point is that so many functions out there says that the electron can be found. Don't know if this is even true anymore.

Well, well well, I was wondering when you would take advantage and begin your usual: you don't know anything or all I got out of this "rant" is that you still do not know what complex numbering systems are. or None of this makes any sense at all... YOU PLACED THESE ALL OVER MY POST! Listen, since you are the expert here, it is obvious that what I say can better be explained, if "you" would kindly help me understand this. I don't understand science yet. I am not afraid to say this to anyone. I don't need to impress my friends, god, nor my leaders. I want to know greater than my ignorant addictions of predictably.. I will continue to attempt to understand science. Until the staff, orders me on a preferred method of "type" I will continue the style of my typing and communication, as "now" I see this is another annoyance of yours. HAHAHAH! YOU ARE BOLD..... its called the everlasting proof of god, within the domain of science on religion...... I see their are some things YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER,,,, HOW FUNNY!

Well you have 'EXPERT" in your profile, so it is assumed you to be an EXPERT right? Also, don't place pieces and sections of what I post or reply as a way to dismantle me. You left this part out: As per the protocols of science, if it has no shape nor size, if it has no color, smell, taste, if it cannot be seeing and etc, then it does not exist. The point is that I am assuming there is only one type of electron also known as a fermion, is this true?, The phrase "I think" was recommended for me to use "by other members" as a way of letting others know I am not really technically oriented with science terminology and am still learning. I see it makes no difference.

Either you must be testing my patience, or testing my knowledge. Minerals the "stuff" rocks are made have atoms in them, and atoms have electrons...http://www.atomicrocks.com/index3.htm Do I believe this? Well I have never seen an electron so ""technically science says for me""" they don't exist. As per the protocols of science, if it has no shape nor size, if it has no color, smell, taste, if it cannot be seeing and etc, then it does not exist. So for me, no the electron does not exist... You can start to imagine how difficult talking about science can be now! So then, the center of mass is thus 0 for "anything"? Again, technically as per science protocols it doesn't exist right??? So how then and why then is the electron? It has mass, so its mass must "to" have a center of measure as per the rock or anything else for that mater. To add light photons are still not understood by science, they exist in space but not time. But time also represents numbers and complex systems, which in turn are able to conclude a generalization of time, space, geometry and etc.... This does not apply to the photon light particle, but does "some how" to the electron. All the pieces of the puzzle are not understood by "anyone" yet.... So to answer your question "what electron"? I really don't know at this point, because again ""technically science says for me""" they don't exist. You can start to imagine how difficult talking about science can be now! At times we should admit that we may be wrong about everything we know, and look at more simplistic ways of communication, and STOP the dogmatic, sarcasms, and questions like these "what electron"? and links like these:http://lmgtfy.com/?q=center+of+gravity sarcastic and such a waste of precious moments..... FOR THE RECORD, HOW CAN LOCATION BE APPLICABLE IF SCIENCE HAS NO CLUE ABOUT WHERE TIME TAKES PLACE, WHAT IT IS RELATIVE TO AND ETC..... You totally contradicted yourself, this is exactly what I said: You say: Center of mass is a location, not a mass. I said: Thus since E=mc squared, when finding the center of mass for the rock, the number that this represents must then be squared and can be workable like a tensor Thanks for the electron count, will figure this out soon....

Well what I am trying to do is guess work. I think if I can find the center of mass for my rock, then I could pin point where the electron also is. This is because I have read about "particle indistinguishability." From what I know on this, what separates every atom is its atomic mass, so if I can find the center of mass for my rock I can also find this electron because electrons also are "part" of the atomic mass, ie protons = electrons. Not always though because of something else about isotopes " i think" in where there are more protons than neutrons, but I just want to keep this simple for now... Finding the mass of the rock is like finding a "dimensionally sound" number" that can be worked with to find that one electron in the rock. The electron and the mass of the rock, are virtually copies of the same thing. Thus to me the rock in reality is made of pure "emptiness." It is this 0 emptiness that I am trying to define as 1 = 0 This may sound odd, but I think there is a way to do this. But this does stop hear, if this can be done, then "time" would be in the hands of the person whom is in possession of the rock, meaning that if the rock is in my hands, and I move it, then time " as per the rock in my hands" would be relative to my hand moving the rock, thus the electron would be relative to me. This may be wrong, but what this can help determine is where does time take place... Thanks I have read much about how scientist have said, "at least what I read" that everything is made of atoms, if this is the case, then electrons too must occupy these atoms. Rocks then are no exception but their mass is. Measuring the mass of the rock to its center, can determine where the electron is. I feel that the center of the rock's mass, when found must be then be squared, like E=mc squared. Time then would be relative to itself within the center of the rock, perhaps radiating energy like a gyro within the center of mass for the rock " not on the outside!" But in the inside, but whom knows. Thus since E=mc squared, when finding the center of mass for the rock, the number that this represents must then be squared and can be workable like a tensor. The first thing for me is to find the center of the mass for the rock and I can do some experimenting that may prove this.. Still reading on how to get this center of mass though. Thanks

whats the difference? the link you gave me says mass is the same as gravity... I would just like to keep this simple, not to complex, thanks Ok, wait I saw this link, but what I am trying to do is measure the electron mass in the object: http://www.ehow.com/how_2251654_calculate-center-gravity.html

How do scientist measure the center of mass for a rock? I have searched the internet for this answer, but it tells more on how to measure 2 objects from each other, as in G* [m1*m2] /r sqrd ], the gravitational constant of proportionality... BUT! this is not what I am looking for. I have this rock and I would love to just measure its center of mass only, not in relation to another object. What I envision is this: Mass of rock time the electron mass, but that is how far I get Any ideas please??? Thanks!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY Science Forums! THANKS FOR CREATING THIS INCREDIBLE FORUM! I have learned much and look forward to better my understanding on math and science...

Then could this mean that some numbers drive precession better than others, regardless of calculators? I have never seen this type of stuff before, I thought I was in error but it seem they later numbers I have are exact with "any" calculator....

BUT THERE IS SOMETHING STILL WRONG THOUGH! REALLY PLEASE LOOK! These are different numbers here: Goolge Calculator: 27.12253364740064 * 0.03686971184183 = 1 Calculateforfree.com / Online Calculator http://www.calculate...e.com/sci1.html 27.12253364740064*0.03686971184183 = 1 Could some numbers be differently read by calculators??? I have this right here: Goolge Calculator: 27.12253364740064*0.03686971184183 = 1 Thanks for the link, I did not get 1 but rather: 0.99999999999999999840632... Can calculators not be smart at all then because of this????

what is wrong with my calculations? These are just any numbers here... google calculator 0.104384134 * 9.58 = 1 Calculateforfree.com / Online Calculator http://www.calculateforfree.com/sci1.html 0.104384134*9.58 = 1.00000000372 I know about rounding off, but do calculators perform differently?? thanks

"simensional analysis" is the one for me.. Where is a link to the basic steps,thanks! This caught my eye here: putting physical quantities like force and energy in terms of 5 basic dimensions which are mass, length, time, electric charge and temperature.