Unity+

I find it funny how people can fall for such alien "evidence". I remember one article about how a man was able to deceive these group of people to form a cult and commit suicide by just putting a trash can lid in front of a camera, photo-shopped it, and claimed he had evidence of extra-terrestrial.

Seriously, if the government was hiding aliens from us, they would be proven to exist already. Unless you are implying that these "aliens" are invisible because we are brainwashed. I mean, it would be quite nice if there were aliens, but from evidence today there is no likely hood that we will see them any time soon.

img

What or who do I hate? That is such a strange opinion to me, because it sure does not fit any feelings I have. You might be projecting something in me that is not true of me.

 

The other possible explanation is, virtue, is synonymous strength. Personally, I am very humble person who knows how much she does not know. I have an income far below the poverty level, and this forces me to live a very simple life. I do my best to live by my grandmother's 3 rules"

 

1. We respect everyone because we are respectful people.

2. We protect the dignity of others.

3. We do everything with integrity.

 

I walk my dog down the bike path and all the homeless people think I am their friend because I treat them just as I would anyone else. I just came back from managing a foster home for a week, and the 4 mentally challenged adults who live there, see me as a good friend who eats with them and socializes with them as equals. I am forever, thanking them for helping me get around town by giving me directions, or do whatever is hard for me to do without help. I don't think anyone who knows me would hold the opinion of me that you have expressed.

 

Morale is what comes out of believing we are doing the right thing. When I speak of our freedoms, I certainly believe I am doing the right thing. Standing for our rights, when everyone is attacking me, is the virtuous thing to do, and I become as a soldier standing his duty. Only if we live by our principles, and stand for them, will we keep them, because it is not the police or the military that can protect our human rights and liberty. Laws take away our liberty. When people live by principles and morals, they do not need laws. Moderators who do not value principles, might be a problem as much of a problem as the posters who do not live with principles and values. This is something we need to be mindful in all areas of our lives. We protect our liberty by obeying the laws, and having good moral judgment and living by principles.

 

Speaking of the education that has changed our understanding these matters, is equally important to defending democracy. Explaining the change in bureaucratic order that has shifted power and authority from the individual to the state, is just as important to defending democracy. Your awareness of such matters is what gives you power, to maintain the changes, or question if we should maintain the changes. Information is power, and I am trying to give everyone power. I speak with love, not hate. My user name is a statement of my love of democracy and human rights.

First, if your going to complain about rights and government why are you doing it here?

Second of all, was this supposed to make us feel bad for you? The users here came to talk scientifically with others to discuss science and related ideas, not to invoke our real-life problems on others, though if you want you can probably PM someone to see if they want to get involved. If your agenda coming here was to spread a political message you came to the wrong place. If you want to protest against government, go do so. Everyone comes here to NOT talk about politics unless in the right section. This section is labeled "Suggestons, Comments and Support" not "Politics".

One piece of evidence that could lead to the idea that homosexuality is a genetic disorder is the fact that there are more homosexual men than there are homosexual women. Genetically, this should be statistically correct because women are carriers while men are the ones who only have XY chromosomes that can cause the "gay" gene, but the problem with this issue is the fact that you can argue that men go through puberty longer than women(change in brain function more exactly), which leads to the point of whether this stage causes differences in sexual preferences. I mean, there seems to be no statistic to back up this claim so this can only by hypothesis, but the last one i mentioned can be backed up. In opinion, I feel that there is a genetic disorder, but it doesn't cause the homosexuality but can be the catalyst involved in having a man or woman decide whether they are homo or heterosexual.

I have been watching and reading up on the Higgs Boson, and I was wondering; if the Higgs Boson were to be discovered(it was supposedly found, but not confirmed yet), would it explain why on the quantum level electrons appear to be in two places at once while in the general physical world everything seems to have a specific location that it is located at? (I hope I posted this in the right section).

You downgraded mine and upped your own because I think I'm being mis-interpreted? How childishly despicable. I already stated in the first post that the use of a nuclear weapon is BS. But regardless of that, there is still evidence that a nuclear explosion happened whether you want to go into denial about it or not, I'm not asking about evidence for it, I already know there's some evidence for it that could be somewhat shaky, so given the undismissable fact that there is some evidence as well as NO scientific proof that it wasn't or couldn't have been an atomic explosion of some sort, there is plenty of room to investigate possibilities.

It seems this is the only argument that people give when they can't argue against the opposing argument because they know they lost, but back on topic.

It seems you are ignoring the evidence that is being given to you and continue to ask for evidence that you want to prove your point, but the fact is there isn't or very little of it. And if this is not the case, what specific evidence do you want?

Here is the thing with users and the supposed "censorship". First of all, this forum is private property and is owned by the people who bought the product. Freedom of speech applies to public property under the laws of the United States. The owner of this site has the right to determine if freedom of speech is allowed in his or her forum if he or she wants. If you don't like that, go to a different forum or whatever you intend to do. For example, if freedom of speech were to apply also for private property that would mean that protest groups would have the ability to protest inside the building they are protesting.

But g and p don't have the same units. How can you add an acceleration and a density?

Because, in theory, they have a connection with each other. Gravitational acceleration is connected to the mass of the particle or object, while density deals with the mass and volume. Since both of a connection with mass, being the mass has relation to the energy of the particle or object.

EDIT: I think I misunderstood the question at first. You aren't really adding the two together. You are multiplying the gravitational acceleration of the particle or object by the values in the parentheses to get a different value for the relation with the density variable. Almost like ab + c.

Also, an interesting finding that was made with the Time Constant equation.

If you were to modify the equation to calculate density, here is what it would look like:

Now, one problem I faced earlier with the equation was the fact that if gravity is equal to 0, like in space, then that would mean density is equal to 0. That, at first, was a problem faced with the equation. However, I finally realized that it was actually good that it was zero because of how we look at density.

Density can be measured by submerging an object into a volume of water and calculating the volume and then divide mass by the volume. This is a good method to calculate volume, but there is one problem. That is density relative the Earth and the strength of the electro-magnetic field of the Earth(this electro-magnetic field will be explained later on). This brought up other hypotheses about water and the molecule itself. As we know, water molecules have a polarity, meaning that is has both a positive and negative charge. This could mean that because of the electro-magnetic field of the Earth these water molecules are spinning at speeds determined by the amount of energy that is within that area of the water molecules. Now, low density objects float while higher density objects sink. This is due to the fact that water molecules are spinning at certain speeds, creating a push on the object itself. Now, back to the equation.

Since this equation's phenomena happened, this brought up the idea of relative density. Our idea of density relies on the fact that we can measure with the water on the Earth, but in space the density would be relative to the "gravity" of space, which is or close to 0. This means that density is actually how much force it takes for an object to reach another with electro-magnetic interaction or gravitational attraction relative to the particles or objects in-between these two objects.

This hypothesis could be the explanation for why things float in water(besides the explanation of density).

Well, I am going to be releasing another video explaining more of my video theory(correction) soon. For now, I will keep updating the mathematics behind this theory and present some visuals to explain the theory.

So their spin is not quantized? Interesting.

 

 

No, it's quite circular. For starters, energy is not a substance, it's a property. So this is like saying the field is made entirely of tall.

 

 

Exchange particles are typically Bosons. But at least we know that the exchange particle is massive, which, of course has implications for the range of the interaction.

 

 

Yeah, you posted these earlier. About them —

 

Schaffter's constant is unitless, so how is that the "width" of the phesron?

 

In an equation like W(G)=gsin(G) + g + p, it implies that W and g and p have the same units, but g and p obviously do not. Also, sin(G) implies G is unitless, but I don't see where you've explained what G is.

The width of a Phesron actually is the Schaffter's constant in angstroms, which is why the given equations deal with the Schaffter's constant in the first place. Dealing with the width of a Phesron determines how energy reacts within the Phesron itself.

This equation is generally used to measure energy fluctuation of a Phesron. In this case, g represents gravity while p represents density, which means that g is the gravitational acceleration while p is mass over volume(or in other terms of equations). G could be said to be just an x variable.

I think I must have worded it wrong. I know energy is not a substance but is a property. I think my terminology should have been better.

You forgot to ask how this fits in with the Fetzengru matrix.

If that is a question that you want answered, what do you mean by fit? Elaborate on the Fetzengru matrix and what specifics you want explained in the fitting of this and the Fetzengru matrix.

What is the spin of the Phesron?

 

 

What comprises the radiation?

 

 

What is this energy particle that mediates the interaction between Phesrons? What properties does it have? What interactions can it undergo?

1) In any case, a Phesron has the spin trajectory that of the electro-magnetic field, depending on the amount of energy that is absorbed into the Phesron consistent with the Schafftarian field, or could be known as "relative mass or energy"

2)The make up of the radiation is similar to energy, but is unlike energy in the way that we think of. This radiation is similar to the electro-magnetic field except for the fact that it is not comprised of energy, but a different form. It is hard to explain what kind of radiation energy it is because of the understandable vocabulary that would not give a basic understanding of the idea of radiation energy, but to give some try at it by describing it as an electro-magnetic field not formed with energy, but radiation.(sorry if my answer is not as 'good' as it should be.

3) The energy particle that mediates the interaction between Phesrons could be related with the electron, except its properties refer to both having a positive and negative charge. With this property, the Schafftarian field has the ability to absorb this electron-like particle to form the basic fundamental Phesron with energy.

EDIT: To complete the math, here is a make up of the equations(not necessary, but just to give some form to the equations).

So during an interaction of two Phesrons is energy exchanged via a process of Schaffting within the Schafftarian field? I take it then, that in your view of the world there is a great deal of Schaffting going on? Is this Schaffting exclusively on the nano scale, or can one get macroscopic Schaffting? For example have you ever been Schaffted? Are all the members reading this being Schaffted at the moment? These seem to me to be important questions.

1. Two unstable Phesrons through interactions would cause what we call a chemical reaction, where the energy of Phesrons transfer until either the energy involved causes both Phesrons to become stable or energy from other Unstable Phesrons(or Phesrons with extra energy) have their energy transfered to the other unstable Phesron.
2. With unstable Phesrons, yes there is a lot of "Schaffting" as you call it. This is viewed a lot of the time in the chemistry world.
3. In many cases, most Schaffting occurs on the nano scale, with exceptions to cases that Schaffting could occur on the macroscopic scale where Schaffting occurs between more than 2 Phesrons.
4. Depends what you mean by that. If Phesrons are unstable and are able to absorb more energy could become Schaffted with other energy is available.
5. Could be if the Phesrons are unstable and need more energy particles.

I thought the phesron had no energy?

 

 

 

 

Phrases like "reactant time", "it is not an energy field but a radiation field" and "Schafftarian field" are indistinguishable from gibberish until you define/explain what they (or you) mean, in terms of concepts that are already defined. Otherwise I could ask how this fits in with the Fetzengru matrix and pretend that the question had meaning.

A Phesron initially has no energy, but has the ability to absorb energy. The graph represents a Phesron with energy and how energy fluctuates for Phesrons with energy.

The Schafftarian field is the radiation field of the Phesron. Reactant time deals with reaction or change due to exposure to other Phesrons with energy. For example, when one Phesron with energy comes in energy contact with the other Phesron, the reactant time determines how long it takes for both Phesrons to react towards each other due to energy particle that each Phesron has interacting with each other.

Though, with the fact that Phesrons initially having no energy but coming into contact with energy to absorb brings the all time problem of being able to extract that energy from the Phesron, unless one has the capability to have to Phesrons react with each other. Problem with that is energy would transfer from one Phesron to the other. In any case, it would require the radiation "energy" to interact with the Schafftarian field to cause the energy to be released from the Phesron, making the Phesron massless and having no energy.

It's not an opinion. It's a well established fact. We have an entire civilization built on our understanding of electromagnetism, and it works very well.

and it works very well.

This just means that our current understanding of things allows us to interpret how things MAY work with our Universe, but it isn't an actual truth till proven otherwise.

For example, 1 + 1 = 2, but 3 - 1 = 2 as well. Both ways are different understanding of things, but yet they equal out to be the samething.

As for the math variable definitions, here is the list:

In this equation, g represents gravitational acceleration. ρ, in this instance, represents density.

In this equation, g represents gravitational acceleration. ρ, in this instance, represents density. Note: G and x are actually the samething, it was an equation error that I made.

λ Represents, in this case, the maximum density a particle can have before changing state. S(G) and W(G) represent the values of the other two equations.

Here are the improved graphs.

Note: In this graph, I forgot to say that time is measured in seconds.

Sorry I forgot to include the rest of the information. I was in a rush at the time and wanted to at least get somethings added on.

EDIT: Another equation to reference to is the Time Constant equation:

It's not an opinion that electrons do not have both positive and negative charge.

Nice to know you have an opinion. That is why it is called "Atomic theory"

I am coming out with another video to explain more of the theory.

Okay, now to provide the math for everyone.

So, there is one constant to be aware of which is the Schaffter's constant, which is equal to

The Schaffter's constant is the theoretical width of a Phesron, for clarification.

Now there are two other equations that determine reactant time and fluctuating energy.

Which, graphically, is displayed like so:

This graph and equation represents the reaction time of a Phesron due to interaction with other particles or Phesrons. This gives the prediction of how long it takes for a particle to give chemical or physical changes to its state. For example, for this particle, it would take 0.5 seconds to each the density or energy state of reaction to the other particle or Phesron.

The next equation represents the stable state of a Phesron.

This also can be represented graphically:

This graph shows that Phesron's energy fluctuates and is not always constant. With fluctuation, energy loss and energy gain is so slight that it isn't detectable by the human sense.

The next equation represents the maximum density a Phesron can reach before change chemically and physically.

More mathematics to represent the theory is coming.

Your 'theory' applies to what universe? Because it isn't this one.

 

This is complete and total nonsense.

Everyone has their opinions on subjects, yours is an opinion, though I do thank you for giving criticism.

Right... can I have definitions for those terms? or link? please.

Sure.

Schafftarian Field: a radiation field that enables Phesrons to absorb energy. In a sense, it is similar to an electro-magnetic field, but the difference is it is not an energy field but a radiation field.

Phesron: a type of particle that has no energy or mass, but exists and consists of the Schafftarian field.

You argue that protons are made of 2048 electrons and neutrons from 2049 electrons. The extra electron balances the charge, causing the neutron to be neutral.

 

Can you explain how 2048 electrons with negative charge avoid repelling each other?

How does the negative charge from 2048 electrons yield a net positive charge?

How does the addition of a single electron cancel out that charge?

Well, maybe I forgot to mention this, but in theory the electrons are actually Energy particles both having a positive and negative charge, which is what allows these protons and neutrons to be formed. The addition of a single electron cancels out any of the charges because the fact the outer field has both a positive and negative field, which causes conflict in both fields creating a non-charge effect. 2048 energy particles would not repel each other because since they both have a positive and negative charge the particles pull towards each other is stronger than the repelling force. However, since this is unstable, especially for neutrons, they can be broken apart.

Based on purely seeing that video clip first frame... How object knows that it shouldn't go faster and dangering itself? Sounds weird to me, can you answer that? I didn't watch the video (I'm too lazy and I have too short attention spin).

Basically the Schafftarian field is a field that acts almost like an attraction force, but is not an attraction force. It allows these energy particles to become relative to that Phesron. What happens is when these energy particles transfer between Phesrons, this affects the Schafftarian field. However, there is a certain speed that this transfer can occur at, being the speed of light.

One comment is I don't go looking at videos.

 

If you're posting here, it's considered good form to at least give a brief overview of your WAG. (wild ass guess). This is a discussion site, not an extention of youtube.

Well repetition isn't a good form of presenting an idea, so I thought the video would explain enough, but if you really want I will add more info.

Here is a video I made about my theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef0QIsBXxNs

More videos coming. Hope to hear some comments.