Is the universe made from one particle in 3 states?

John_C_87

Neither are you.

Akhenaten

Stick to religious nonsense sites only. Science is not for you. Debate is not for you. 

John_C_87

I was just commenting out loud on the similarity between your theory and how Uranium is enriched.

John_C_87

Science in a form of religion. It does not hold documented separation process by constitutional principle to for a separation on its own behalf. 

Akhenaten

That's your own religious based brainwashed state of sad existence. Don't apply it to others.

John_C_87

Akhenaten said:

That's your own religious based brainwashed state of sad existence. Don't apply it to others.

No it is a whole truth that would need to be separated by a process of United State constitutional separation. Which by the way is not like naming something a constitution or law and using it as simple nothing but legal precedent.

By the way in whole truth aren't you just saying stick to your religion, my religion includes science and a understanding of how it can be impartial held independent by United State of constitutional principles. Your scientific claim is light as a part of a perpetual engine and I should stick to matters which do not question your abilities to tell the truth?

Akhenaten

When you learn how to use the English language properly you may get some respect. But, at the moment, your language skills are severely lacking. I think they call it dyslexia.

John_C_87

When you learn how to use the English language properly you may get some respect. Had you taken any time to make a correction or ask a question I would agree with you. Question. Question. Your really\ are not setting a basic principle in mathematic proof. For all. There exists.

Plaffelvohfen

Akhenaten said:

Still not making sense?

Neither do you... just sayin...

Akhenaten

@Plaffelvohfen

This is not a forum for uneducated opinions. If you think my theory is flawed, then, use logic to disprove it or just . 

Akhenaten

@John_C_87

Question, question, for all, there exists. No logic.

Plaffelvohfen

@Akhenaten

Make me...

John_C_87

Akhenaten said:

@John_C_87

Question, question, for all, there exists. No logic.

That is because it is a start and middle of a mathematic proof waiting on your mathematic logic. You are not helping in moving your theory forward in discussion. A theory is already known to be wrong and we look for assistance by shaping it to be a law. (Ernestine's theory of relativity has issue created by time as relativity is plagiarizing the mathematic proof of time. Time has the fact of working in a 90 degree angle of the motion of a compass which does not move the same speed as the earths spin in basic principle.)

A law of science is something known to be correct as fact, and then with mathematic proof can be proven wrong as the exception. So the statement of proof goes "For all" and this statement is followed mathematic principle, then  "there exists" and the principle of law that is always created shown with mathematics.

The idea is shared advancement of learning. 

John_C_87

Akhenaten said:

@Plaffelvohfen

This is not a forum for uneducated opinions. If you think my theory is flawed, then, use logic to disprove it or just . 

All theory is flawed and you simple cannot provide the logic the completion of your own theory to law. FYI what you are looking for from me and other when introducing a theory is assistance in identification of mathematic proof.

Akhenaten

@John_C_87

I have already told you that my theory relies on the common denominator mathematical principle. That's it. It's the simple universe theory of everything. Thus, there are no complications or long mathematical formulas.

Plaffelvohfen

@Akhenaten

It's still nonsense...

Akhenaten

Explain why it it nonsense. 

Plaffelvohfen

@Akhenaten

LOL yeah sure... Explain something to someone who thinks aether winds are actually a thing, that thinks photons do not exists?  Why would I waste my time on such a clearly delusional individual?   

John_C_87

Akhenaten said:

@John_C_87

I have already told you that my theory relies on the common denominator mathematical principle. That's it. It's the simple universe theory of everything. Thus, there are no complications or long mathematical formulas.

You are relying on a state of fractions which are numerator and denominator, so it is a simple theory of a fractional state created of the Universe. As you assign only the common denominator’s to your short formula you do not account for the denominators which are not common.

John_C_87

Akhenaten said:

Explain why it nonsense. 

This sounds like homework...…...…...

Akhenaten

I know. You still couldn't breathe with the help of an iron lung. lol

John_C_87

Akhenaten said:

Still not making sense?

That's why your theory will never be a law of science. You do not know your own theory well enough to address grievance made against it.

Akhenaten

@Plaffelvohfen

Without this imagined aether wind or what you call gravity you would just float off into outer space. Now, did you just imagine that?

John_C_87

I made it clear gravity is a motion and has nothing to do with Aether. Gravity is the motion created by modulation, elasticity, and reverberation. The motion is independent of that from inertia, and centrifugal force. For all motion created with elasticity bound by modulation within the state of reverberation there exist gravity as motion. ( Rights Reserved).


Without a mathematic law of gravity all life would not have a opportunity of understanding why life would be vaporized by the forces of inertia and centrifugal force described in the first three laws of motion.

Akhenaten

@John_C_87
How did you escape from the lunatic asylum?

John_C_87

How did you escape from the lunatic asylum?

By standing next to you sometimes it’s all about who you know.

I didn’t expect to base a motion of gravity off something that doesn’t exist, modulation, elasticity, and reverberation are known displays of energy and motion that can be mathematically translated into a fourth kind of motion. Describing an unknown microscopic wind as a source of motion to be described as gravitation leaves a hope of an unknown source of wind to maintain a theory not law.