Unity+

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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. 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. 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. 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. Could be if the Phesrons are unstable and need more energy particles.

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.

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: In this equation, t^i is the time constant variable of a specific area of space-time, g represents gravitational acceleration, and ρ represents density of that area of space-time. This equation could even be modified to determine the density of a black hole in a theoretical sense. Here is the graph for this equation which represents proportionality of the time constant and gravity. The Schaffter's constant cann also be defined as Which means the other equations could be written as so:

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.

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

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.

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. 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.

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.