UNIVERSAL THEORY

[univeral theory]

Since E and W are both in units of energy, Q^2 is a unitless quantity

 

ad has units of v^2, not v

 

There is no way to get from Tesla to meters/sec

 

 

Just to stress the point made above that; as E=WQ² is dimensionally equivalent to E =MV², then E=WQ² is dimensionally sound.

 

And thus; “The framework of every thing is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite in nature. This opposition is framed through conflicting symmetry that is directly proportional to the regulation of their framework and inversely proportional to its coordination; and when the equilibrium framework of opposites is established, the reciprocal of the symmetry prevails and the unity of everything is realized” zaid.

[Klaynos]

 

Just to stress the point made above that; as E=WQ² is dimensionally equivalent to E =MV², then E=WQ² is dimensionally sound.

And thus; “The framework of every thing is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite in nature. This opposition is framed through conflicting symmetry that is directly proportional to the regulation of their framework and inversely proportional to its coordination; and when the equilibrium framework of opposites is established, the reciprocal of the symmetry prevails and the unity of everything is realized” zaid.

Then your definitions do not agree with what we know about the universe and you are still wrong.

[swansont]

 

 

Just to stress the point made above that; as E=WQ² is dimensionally equivalent to E =MV², then E=WQ² is dimensionally sound.

 

 

As long as Q has no units, yes.

 

 

 

And thus; “The framework of every thing is smoothly and recursively reciprocal and opposite in nature. This opposition is framed through conflicting symmetry that is directly proportional to the regulation of their framework and inversely proportional to its coordination; and when the equilibrium framework of opposites is established, the reciprocal of the symmetry prevails and the unity of everything is realized” zaid.

 

Sounds like this was generated by a bot.

[Klaynos]

I was remembering Q as work, not "quantum frames of work", so what is that exactly?

[univeral theory]

I was remembering Q as work, not "quantum frames of work", so what is that exactly?

 

 

As Q is a unitless quantity, then from these equations;

 

[latex] \frac{\frac{s}{1}}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex]

 

Or [latex] \frac{s}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex] ,

 

S=x= conservation.

 

and Q is the quantum frames of energy conservation as E=WQ.

 

 

 

[Klaynos]

So what is s? What does it measure?

[swansont]

 

 

As Q is a unitless quantity, then from these equations;

 

[latex] \frac{\frac{s}{1}}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex]

 

Or [latex] \frac{s}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex] ,

 

S=x= conservation.

 

and Q is the quantum frames of energy conservation as E=WQ.

 

 

That explains nothing. Neither [latex] \frac{\frac{s}{1}}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex] nor [latex] \frac{s}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex] contain Q

 

With no other equations, saying E=WQ (and earlier that E=WQ^2) sort of implies that Q=1

 

Which brings us back to: what is Q?

[univeral theory]

That explains nothing. Neither [latex] \frac{\frac{s}{1}}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex] nor [latex] \frac{s}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex] contain Q

 

With no other equations, saying E=WQ (and earlier that E=WQ^2) sort of implies that Q=1

 

Which brings us back to: what is Q?

 

 

I can be sorry if Iam not able to understand the concerns of your question.

 

But according to the formulation of Q ; it is that equation of the phenomenological frames of conserving energy per each unit of energy measurements. And thus the quantum frames of energy conservation equations.

[swansont]

 

 

I can be sorry if Iam not able to understand the concerns of your question.

 

But according to the formulation of Q ; it is that equation of the phenomenological frames of conserving energy per each unit of energy measurements. And thus the quantum frames of energy conservation equations.

 

A meaningless definition, as far as I am able to parse it.

[Klaynos]

 

A meaningless definition, as far as I am able to parse it.

From what I can tell from the s equation s=1

[Ophiolite]

Universal Theory has been given ample time to make his case. Several posters have tried to direct his attention to serious flaws in his argument that he has then either ignored or failed to understand. A single question remains: can this disjointed concatenation of errors be considered a speculation?

[univeral theory]

So what is s? What does it measure?

 

 

From the above Q equations, s is energy conserved in units of work.

 

 

 

[Klaynos]

 

 

From the above Q equations, s is energy conserved in units of work.

 

 

 

Then the equation you gave above where s/sqrt(s)... Is not dimensionally sound. We're going in circles here.

[univeral theory]

Then the equation you gave above where s/sqrt(s)... Is not dimensionally sound. We're going in circles here.

 

 

When it comes to Q, we should only consider the following two equations:

 

1- (s/1/+ .-(√s) )=1, for spontaneous symmetrybreaking. Such that;

 

∂(s/1/- . + (√s)) =1+or-1.

 

 

2- (s/1/(((√s)+ .-)∩(s((√s)+ .-)((√s)+ .-/s) ) )=1, for explicit symmetry breaking. Such that;

 

∂ (s/1/(((√s)+ .-)∩(s((√s)+ .-)((√s)+ .-)/s) ) ))=1+or-1.

 

 

And there fore; M= ħ (∂Q²); where M is mass, ħ is the "h-bar" reduced plank constant ∂Q² is the change in Q².

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Klaynos]

Can you put your equations into latex, it might help understand what you mean. As it still seems you have something like s/sqrt(s)=0 which doesn't seem to make sense...

[swansont]

 

 

When it comes to Q, we should only consider the following two equations:

 

1- (s/1/+ .-(√s) )=1, for spontaneous symmetrybreaking. Such that;

 

∂(s/1/- . + (√s)) =1+or-1.

 

 

2- (s/1/(((√s)+ .-)∩(s((√s)+ .-)((√s)+ .-/s) ) )=1, for explicit symmetry breaking. Such that;

 

∂ (s/1/(((√s)+ .-)∩(s((√s)+ .-)((√s)+ .-)/s) ) ))=1+or-1.

 

Q does not appear in these equations. How can they tell us anything about Q?

[univeral theory]

Can you put your equations into latex, it might help understand what you mean. As it still seems you have something like s/sqrt(s)=0 which doesn't seem to make sense...

 

 

1-[latex] \frac{\frac{s}{1}}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q does not appear in these equations. How can they tell us anything about Q?

 

 

Q: for a more meaningful applied definition, it is quantum frames of energy measurements.

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2013 by univeral theory

[Klaynos]

 

 

1-[latex] \frac{\frac{s}{1}}{+.-(\sqrt{s})} = 1[/latex]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q: for a more meaningful applied definition, it is quantum frames of energy measurements.

 

 

 

Two things, what does +.- mean? Do you mean positive or negative? And, how does s relate to Q as your sentence doesn't seem to answer Swansont's question.

[elfmotat]

I, for one, am particularly stunned that this discussion has lasted for well over 100 replies. It's obvious to anyone with a pulse that Universal Theory's posts are nothing but meaningless poppycock. He has long bouts of rambling word-salad mixed in with nonsensical "equations," and consistently fails to answer even basic questions in a coherent manner.

 

Are you guys still responding because you're having fun reading his gibberish? Because there's just no way anyone could possibly expect anything cogent at this point.

[swansont]

Q: for a more meaningful applied definition, it is quantum frames of energy measurements.

 

Word salad.

[Ophiolite]

I, for one, am particularly stunned that this discussion has lasted for well over 100 replies. It's obvious to anyone with a pulse that Universal Theory's posts are nothing but meaningless poppycock. He has long bouts of rambling word-salad mixed in with nonsensical "equations," and consistently fails to answer even basic questions in a coherent manner.

 

Are you guys still responding because you're having fun reading his gibberish? Because there's just no way anyone could possibly expect anything cogent at this point.

Seconded. It's like watching a car crash in slow motion.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Thirded.