This is my documents. Please point out any mistakes and let me know. Please do this to help me, thank you.

[jalaldn]

Theory of Nature (8).pdf

[exchemist]

deleted

Edited Friday at 02:12 PM by exchemist

[KJW]

38 minutes ago, jalaldn said:

This is my documents. Please point out any mistakes and let me know. Please do this to help me, thank you.

This is a discussion forum, not a proofreading service.

 

Edited Friday at 02:05 PM by KJW

[Phi for All]

You've expended a LOT of effort trying to redefine physics. What bothered you about the mainstream approach to these phenomena? What didn't you understand that made you make up all of this?

[jalaldn]

I published a study that said light is real-time. Why don't you prove that it's wrong?
It would be very helpful if you could tell me why it is wrong and give me a reason.

 

I also published a study that confirmed electricity in real time. If you could prove it wrong to me, I would be happy to give this study a reason to burn.

 

I am doing this as my duty and I have no right to destroy it. I believe it has ruined a part of my life. I need a good reason to throw this away, so please help me.

[Phi for All]

27 minutes ago, jalaldn said:

I published a study that said light is real-time. Why don't you prove that it's wrong?

The first objection I have is that you treat energy as a thing that can be separated from an object, instead of treating it as a property of a thing. This doesn't work in any physics. Can you pour me a cup of energy?

You make assumptions, like "An object can only be written if it has a name". I can write down a water molecule without calling it a water molecule (H2O). 

AFAIK, real-time deals with processes. I couldn't find where you describe how photons traveling at c is a process. Can you support with evidence (not just claims) that light is a process?

[jalaldn]

(This is not something I wrote just now, it's old)

Atom  building blocks are not electric particles , Proof- Electric particles cannot create an object with weight , Just as we cannot look at a piece of burning wood and say that the wood is made of fire - similarly, if electricity is produced from a chemical, that chemical cannot be said to be an electrical particle.

A repels A  and  B repels B  but A attracts B -  The current world of physics has found the solution without finding the cause

An electron or a proton is not a whole substance. It is a part of an object.A place where electric charge is present or generated is called pothu.Pothu has kai force so its counter charge Will not try to approach.  So the electron orbiting concept is not necessary to here

Why even in magnetism there are two opposite poles that attract each other. in the magnet. Why can't they get closer to each other?

if is Atom building blocks are electric particles, There would have been no such thing as metals in this world - Because It has hardness and conductivity

pothu  plays a role in objects shifting and binding together

For example , H2O, indicates that each of its molecules contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms,
it needs some form of pothu to come together and.  although its need to break up, its need some form pothu
but they are not always needed

 

I'll come back in the morning and talk about the rest. Tell me your opinion.

 

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, jalaldn said:

Atom  building blocks are not electric particles ,

Are you talking about charge? What's an "electric particle"? Atoms definitely have electrons, if that's what you're referring to. Gosh, it would be great if there were fixed definitions for these scientific explanations, so we could understand each other without making up words.

3 minutes ago, jalaldn said:

Just as we cannot look at a piece of burning wood and say that the wood is made of fire - similarly, if electricity is produced from a chemical, that chemical cannot be said to be an electrical particle.

Fire is an event, not a thing by itself. Similarly, electro-chemical reactions also require very precise conditions before they can happen, but once those conditions are met, they can't NOT happen.

Also, if electricity is produced from a chemical, the atoms have electrons. Do you recognize electrons as being "an electrical particle"? In mainstream physics, electrons are both particles AND waves.

[studiot]

Just now, KJW said:

This is a discussion forum, not a proofreading service.

Indeed so. +1

 

Just now, jalaldn said:

I published a study that said light is real-time. Why don't you prove that it's wrong?
It would be very helpful if you could tell me why it is wrong and give me a reason.

Because

1. Your document is not Science. In fact it contains many obvious experimental  inaccuracies.
2. Proving anything is not the scientific way. A counterexample may or may not disprove something.
3. Over two and thousand years ago Greek philosophers believed that they could sit in the comfortable villas and dream up hypotheses about how the natural world behaves without ever checking to see if their ideas replicated what actually occurred.
   They were serious wrong in many many respects and it has taken Science thoudands of years to move on to a better ( as in more successful) approach.
   
   Unforunately you appear to be trying to tread the same path as those ancient Greeks.
    

So I seriously you do a couple of things.

Firstly find out about the Scientific Method, which drives scientific activity. And also findout the difference between an Hypothesis and a Theory.
You can ask here at SF about this, I'm sure Phi is bursting to explain this.

Secondly ask about some basic understanding of Science in general and Physics in particular to improve your future thinking.

 

 

 

[jalaldn]

studiot  -

i have proven those two studies to the point that anyone can examine and confirm them.

Jupiter moon Io  doesn't seem like what you're saying, so let's just say what you're saying is wrong. Let's just say what's actually happening. Otherwise, it's going to be like physics magic.

Copper CAT 6A Cable,
Capable Operates at bandwidth of 500MHz.
This cable is in use in many places. The oscilloscope is now in most places.
If the input and output test proves that there is more than one wave or at least one wave, - I will say that all this is a lie and leave.

 

 

Phi for All -
Fire is an event, not a thing by itself. = I don't understand what you are saying (the deeper meaning).

Do you recognize electrons as being "an electrical particle"?  =
Electron  Electric charge−1 e To ensure this, you need an opposite charge. Electrons alone cannot give you energy. What mass do the electrons from the generator come from? No matter how many electrons you have, you can't create a milligram of matter. This is the real truth.

[jalaldn]

14 hours ago, Phi for All said:

 In mainstream physics, electrons are both particles AND waves.

by my practical research in document
One wave cycle life time - 0.0000000025 s
Maximum travel distance - 0.749481145 m
The time it takes to tell the voltage at this end of the wire
to the next end is not even 0.0000000025 s, because half
of that 0.0000000025 s is the opposite charge, so it must
go within 0.00000000125 s
The speed of electricity at this point 40,000,000,000
m/s (- for 400 MHz)

if is as particles or waves  how can this speed be achieved?

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, jalaldn said:

by my practical research in document
One wave cycle life time - 0.0000000025 s
Maximum travel distance - 0.749481145 m
The time it takes to tell the voltage at this end of the wire
to the next end is not even 0.0000000025 s, because half
of that 0.0000000025 s is the opposite charge, so it must
go within 0.00000000125 s
The speed of electricity at this point 40,000,000,000
m/s (- for 400 MHz)

if is as particles or waves  how can this speed be achieved?

Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch.

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, jalaldn said:

i have proven those two studies to the point that anyone can examine and confirm them.

All you have proven is, you don't understand the subject...

[swansont]

22 hours ago, jalaldn said:

Why don't you prove that it's wrong?

!

Moderator Note

That’s not how this works. You need to provide evidence that you’re right.

And forum rules require that the evidence and discussion be posted here, so “read the article” will not suffice.

 

[CharonY]

!

Moderator Note

As noted, please provide a summary of some other basis for discussion, instead of pointing towards a pdf.

As major elements do not seem to follow mainstream physics I have moved it to speculations. Please take a moment to read some of the guidelines for posting and discussing speculations.