edby, you really have to take some time to try and understand how discussion fora work.
I am not asking you to explain your reasoning because I'm somehow stunned by the idea of 10+10=20, or 10N+10N=20N. Indeed, given your previous claims of academic interest (and the, uh, quality of evidence behind that claim), I'd be willing to wager that my mainstream physics education is far more thorough than yours. This is why I suggested you should likely not worry about that, and it turns out I was right.
I am asking you to explain your reasoning because you must have got some of your assumptions wrong to reach this conclusion. I can make an educated guess as to where you fucked up, but that risks me being equally unhelpful as you just were above. So, either explain yourself, or stop wasting time and make space for those who actually want to improve themselves.
Do recall that the actual question asked to you was:
What makes you think so? It's completely not what we propose. Have you found this claim somewhere, or is it just a product of your active imagination?
Do note that your claim that I asked you to prove your conclusion is a transparent lie - all one needs to do to check it is scroll up, making it rather ineffective.
I pointed out that the source of your premises is dubious, and verges on completely made up. Your response to that was "It's mathematics." You can probably see why that answer would not be very helpful, yet somehow you managed to post something of even less value! Astonishing.
Your issue was, and continues to be, that your assumptions have absolutely nothing to do with FET. Making up a silly claim and then proving that it's internally consistent is slightly amusing, but not very helpful in the upper boards. If you continue trying to derail this thread, I'm going to have to put on the moderator hat - something I really don't want to do when it looks like we can make some progress. You've all but conceded the original logical fallacy, and now we just need to work through your gaps in knowledge.