insane_alien

one truth, you can't even get math right.1-13 is -12 not 91*4.

that covers one point(and no it was not common sense considering the crap math in the rest of it). what about the rest. also, retroediting posts is intelectually dishonest. make corrections in future posts but leave the old one as is.

about 12 microamps through the heart will kill.

by which method? because it can be done with microwatts by some and gigawatts by others.

okay lets look at this. 1-13=-12 not 91*3 any 8 year old could tell you this. also, 91*3 = 273 not 364. and 3+6+4 equals 13. not 13-1=12. yes, do the maths crowned. perhaps you should go back and try again.

you really do live in you're own little world don't you. well, we'll try again. how do you carry out your method? what steps are there to the method? list them out. unless you don't actually have a method and are just posting random pictures and expecting everyone to understand them instantly. we aren't telepathic. perhaps your 'method' could teach you that. EDIT: ajb, i'm pretty sure you qualify.

you have proven nothing except you suck at communication skills.

yeah, yeah. come on. actual explanation here. or do you not even have one? are you that far into your own delusions that you cannot explain them to yourself even? also +1 for thetree's method.

and this means what? you need to explain it. you keep insisting we go do our homework, do you expect there to be a book called 'crownedconquern's method' in every library and bookstore or what? you are the only source avaialable and you refuse to give out information. my thoughts are that you are talking total crap and you don't want to admit it. i also think you took one look at the navierstokes equations and decided 'to hell with that, too complicated' and didn't even bother to try and understand them. so much for your method teaching you everything eh? come on, i've seen better trolls than you.

you haven't told us your method so we can actually test it out. and we canot do 'homework' on something when we do not know what it is. all you've given us is random mentions of ancient chinese divination methods. 'magic' is not an explanation. you are making some extraordinary claims, these require evidence. the burden of supplying the evidence is on you because you make the claims. now give some evidence, or even just a step by step description of the method or go away.

yeah, its a wonder no-one ever though to use wikipedia to learn new things before... oh, wait...

you want us to believe you then give us something to work with. so, how about an example. i have made several requests and have yet to see anything even resembleing an answer.

non-educated, imagination and lots of questions aren't problems here. as for time being like a glue, no. it isn't that. particles are held together with the strong nuclear force(which does act like a sort of glue, it is transmitted by particles known as 'gluons' for this reason) and electromagnetic attraction, this acts like a magnet(and it's how magnets work too)

but what does this have to do with the question of 'how do you use your method to derive the navier-stokes equations'? come on. you can do better than this. and no, newton didn't study this method you have still told us nothing about.

thats not about the navier stokes equations either. nor does it use your method. you can't do it can you.

okay, a simpler one. newtons laws then.

i think the point of vacuum evapouration in this case is that the heat can be taken from ambient rather than having to be supplied. usually it is just to dry a substance that is damaged by heating.

so, about the navier-stokes equations, how can the be derived by this method?

that doesn't have anything to do with the navier-stokes equations.

its always been that those with the most resources do better than those with fewer. yes it is a nice ideal to be able to help everyone but you need to be reasonable about it. if you give too much help not only will you create dependants incapable of functioning without the help, you also risk dragging yourself down. so, whats better, help getting to few or everyone being in the crap and nobody can help anyone else. you seem to have a very idealistic view on this. reality is often very different. for what it's worth, i agree with you that its a crap situation and efforts should be made to rectify it somewhat but you do have to be realistic about what can be done that will actually be of benefit, and what will make the situation worse.

show us how to derive the navier-stokes equations using this. unless you can't do it of course.

show us an example then, how can i use this to derive the navier-stokes equations?

you haven't exactly given any information on which we 'can do your homework on'. in order to research something, the basics must be known. like what the hell it's called. i'll say it again, put up or shut up.

how exactly did i interrupt you, you have as long as you want to post a reply.

look, if the drug companies didn't make a profit then they would not be able to invest that profit in discovering new drugs and making exising drugs and no drugs would be made at all. are you arguing that this is better? you likely have a few days worth of food in your house, why don't you send it out to people in africa or haiti? they need it. probably because it's expensive right?