You are so naive it is unreal.
E=mc2 questions?
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
How does it split it if it's not a mixture?
Don't be so fucking stupid.
Well, they have shifted your thread yet again.
No, more actual delusions and lies on your part. Sad. Science and cosmology is doing quite well thank you.
It's your fairy tales listed in a science forum, that are not faring so well.
Sure! If you act like a troll, you will likely be banned.
Your peers and mine on this forum will be the best judge of that, won't they. And like your posts, you don't seem to be doing to well on that score.
I respect the Big Boys, as you put it, and learn from them every day. Your problem is that your delusions of self grandeur, inflated ego, the thinking for myself red herring, has you totally ignoring the big boys by your own admission.
That's what I mean about being in a dangerous, highly delusional state. Sad.
How does any thing split if its not a mixture?
It is simple an energy at a constant, by angle or what ever means a prism works it dilutes the energy into several energies and vice versus, no different than splitting up 240v around a circuit board . It is more than obvious this is what happens when considering L.E.D and man made waves through the constant.
Wrong again.
If something isn't a mixture it can ONLY split into smaller parts that are the same "material" as the larger thing.
To split into different things it MUST be a mixture.
In other words the light going in was a mix of different energies.
What?
Word salad again.
Your starting sounding like the little geek at the back of the class always holding his hand in the air, please pick me sir,please,
Enough already or I will report you to the mods and push for a ban on the grounds of bullying , trying to upset me, childish name calling, and simply not complying to what the mods h ave already stated, you think you are in a position where you can't be banned, I beg to differ i am a virgin media customer and will envoke my rights that the customer is always right,
This is a public forum and I will ask you one last time nicely to pack in it before i do lose my patience.
You are wrong again , I can take a crystal and add energy of different amounts to that crystal to get different spectral colours showing how Naive you are in thinking white light is a mixture, I also can not prove it is not a mixture, but i can prove that the visual content is a constant of invisible and seen has one frequency regardless.
1) The customer ISN'T always right. (As evidenced by your posts). And you AREN'T a customer on this this forum.
2) If that actually worked then paddoboy can get YOU banned.
3) What makes you think Virgin own it? (The last I heard the site was OWNED by one of the Admins/ posters. Zox?).
4) Virgin, if they DO own it, don't set the policies.
You've lost your mind already, so why should we bother about you losing your patience?
Last edited:
What?
Uh, you can't prove it's not but you keep claiming it's not? So you're just making empty claims...
Word salad again.
By the way, you didn't respond to my earlier post:
1) Define "dark".
2) Define "light".
Last edited:
Lose whatever you damn well like. I will continue to refute groundless, baseless, unevidenced fairy tale like claims that you have been making.
And beware, when reporting something to a Mod, they generally go through the thread and get an idea of what has gone on.
Your claims, your accusations have been lies.
Delusions as all here have claimed, is all you have.
Again you have no evidence, or no axiom whatsoever to support the unsupportable stuff you have claimed.
So be my guest and go ahead and report.
Yep, more of the same in each and every thread he has started......
paddyboy, you can't argue with the insane. No matter what evidence TC is presented with, he will simply reject it . It's obvious that the mods on this site don't care about content, only decorum. This forum is a haven for crackpots banned on other sites, which is why TC is posting here. He can't go anyplace else,
An experiment with a prism is indeed evidence, and it trumps your "I had an idea!"
Let's take an example. Let's say you have a friend who wants to maintain your car, and will do it for free. He has no experience fixing cars but he feels he is smarter than most other people. "Your car should never need an oil change," he says. "Cars should be lubricated for life. It's totally logical, and makes much more sense than these stupid oil changes." So he refuses to change your oil.
Then he fills up your car with diesel instead of gasoline. "I have figured this out!" he says, very proud of himself. "Diesel has a higher energy content than gasoline, so you will get better mileage. No one else realizes this."
Then he takes out your battery. "You shouldn't need a battery," he says. "With all that extra energy from the diesel you will have plenty of energy to start the car."
Then he removes your tires and replaces them with big steel rims, no tires. "Trains use steel rims and their wheels last millions of miles," he says. "You'll thank me for this."
How long would you keep taking your car to him? After all, he has a lot of great ideas.
Do it! Please! It will be most amusing.
By all means lose your patience! It will be fascinating to see if you can get any more silly. My money is on "no" but you never know.
Perhaps if enough of the more reasonable did complain in the thread just recently started?
I already gave a suggestion.
Define dark and light in a way to mimic what history says and in the way of a true lack of understanding, or define light and dark to my knowledge and true understanding?
So wrong, a prism is evidence that a prism can spilt light up, it is not evidence that the input is a mixture of frequencies, if you call that evidence I would hate to be in a court of law and you were the defence.
No axiom evidence, you are barking mad, you are trying to deny that light in 3 dimensional space is see through to all observers? that is an axiom of logic that can not be denied, you lie not me and think you are in some way funny in the process.
back to topic, why is gravity not relative to atoms when the atomic forces at a density would be a stronger attractive force?
Example - if i was to place atoms in the Universe in a single mass with a greater density to the Sun, then this mass would have the stronger gravitational force according to science and the maths.
Example - if i was to place atoms in the Universe in a single mass with a greater density to the Sun, then this mass would have the stronger gravitational force according to science and the maths.
- Status