The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: For space flow  (Read 2960 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
For space flow
« on: 02/02/2016 09:47:17 »
 Now I am not sure your imagination will imagine this, but can you imagine a ''nothing particle''?
 
 
The particle is negative by all means, and the particle is mass itself, but without physical body or structure, more like a Ghost, so can we call it the Ghost particle just for discussion purposes?
 
The maths that shows the existence of the Ghost particle is this
 
4/3 pi r   -  4/3  pi  r  =
 
answer left blank
 
 
 
But also the Ghost particle is infinite in volume V=∞
 
 
Now let us consider the entirety of space is made from  the Ghost particles, and all Ghost particles are attracted to Ghost particles, making the existing fabric of space . (At this stage we have an infinite void made up of negative Ghost particles).
 
OK so far?
 
 
Add on - Ghost particles are a ''zero point'' of any reference point of the entirety of space that adjoins the ghost particles together. (explaining the whole)
 
Ghost particles have isotropic centripetal force of their adjoining selves and hold a stationary existence that can never be displaced where time and motion stand still always holding the value of an absolute stationary reference frame.
 
To express the dimension's of the Ghost particle is to leave the dimensions blank, to express the whole of the ghost particles is to leave the value infinite.
 
Defining the value of ''nothing'' to be 0 to ∞
 
 
So when we now consider before the big bang there was nothing, 0 to ∞ expresses to be true.
 
In present terms you could define the ghost particles as ''distance'' or no ''distance'' or maybe dark energy.
 
Ghost particles are indestructible, immortal if you like, they are also inseparable.
 
So jumping forward slightly this takes me to the Higgs bosson, a denser concrete existence of the ghost particles.
 
The Higgs a negative that is denser than the ghost particle , a greater mass than the ghost mass, so these Higgs are attracted to other Higgs, to make up a Quark, that then make up a proton.
 
 
Only positive can expand the mass, positive being anti-mass, but the mass of the ghost particles is never affected by positive, the bond is to tight. Only the concrete existence of the Ghost particles can be affected.
 
 
This might sound strange,
 
If we could remove all the positive energy from matter, all the matter would reside in a singularity, everything would be reversed, the expansion would contract, we would have one big negative rock at the center of the universe.


 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #1 on: 02/02/2016 10:28:29 »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #2 on: 02/02/2016 10:32:10 »
For space flow

Why?

I recognise your mind is open, I recognise you can think for yourself , I recognise you do not just rely on present information, I think you would understand me and vice versus if we had a serious discussion.

p.s I am not asking you to be my friend , I want your honest opinions.



« Last Edit: 02/02/2016 10:37:22 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #3 on: 02/02/2016 10:38:40 »
Do we agree that positive repels positive and that positive is also attracted to negatives?

definition I am using of repel

''repel
rɪˈpɛl/Submit
verb
1.
drive or force (an attack or attacker) back or away.''


''repulse
rɪˈpʌls/Submit
verb
1.
drive back (an attack or attacker) by force.''
« Last Edit: 02/02/2016 10:45:32 by Thebox »
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #4 on: 02/02/2016 10:50:48 »
Do we agree that positive repels positive and that positive is also attracted to negatives?
Hahaha...
I can relate to almost nothing in your original post.
As to the above statement;
It would depend on what the statement is applied to. It can be said that positive thoughts attract positive thoughts, and negative thoughts likewise can attract more negative thoughts.
Without defining what the statement is to be applied to it is too general to be always true.
So no. As stated I can not agree with it.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #5 on: 02/02/2016 10:55:06 »
Do we agree that positive repels positive and that positive is also attracted to negatives?
Hahaha...
I can relate to almost nothing in your original post.
As to the above statement;
It would depend on what the statement is applied to. It can be said that positive thoughts attract positive thoughts, and negative thoughts likewise can attract more negative thoughts.
Without defining what the statement is to be applied to it is too general to be always true.
So no. As stated I can not agree with it.

Ok, let me define for discussion positive and negative polarity.

definition
polarity
pə(ʊ)ˈlarɪti/Submit
noun
the property of having poles or being polar.
"it exhibits polarity when presented to a magnetic needle"
the relative orientation of poles; the direction of a magnetic or electric field.
plural noun: polarities
"the magnetic field peaks in strength immediately after switching polarity"



« Last Edit: 02/02/2016 11:12:42 by Thebox »
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #6 on: 02/02/2016 12:05:24 »
bedtime for me tonight, but I'll play for as long as it makes sense to me.
Yes I agree that where magnetic fields are concerned, opposite polarities attract, and like polarities repel.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #7 on: 02/02/2016 12:26:40 »
bedtime for me tonight, but I'll play for as long as it makes sense to me.
Yes I agree that where magnetic fields are concerned, opposite polarities attract, and like polarities repel.

Also this is true for electrical fields?  and thank you for your time
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #8 on: 03/02/2016 02:20:36 »
Also this is true for electrical fields?
I would have to see proof of that before I agreed.
I have a background in electrical engineering. Although I changed career paths and have not actively participate in the field for 30 or so years, I have a nagging feeling in the back of my head that this is not necessarily true.
I'll try and look into it.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #9 on: 03/02/2016 03:05:19 »
I have a nagging feeling in the back of my head that this is not necessarily true.
I'll try and look into it.
OK this what was nagging me;
Two wires that are exactly parallel to one another will feel an attractive force when the current is flowing in the same direction. So the definition of like repels like and opposite attracts opposite is not universal and has to be applied with situation properly defined. Magnetic and electrical fields are geometry sensitive and a force at right angles can end up being applied which is neither attractive nor repulsive.
I have to even withdraw my earlier consent that magnetic fields behave in the manner of your statement.
It is too much of a generalisation.
The statement would have to be presented with all extenuating circumstances involved before an analysis of its validity can properly be made.

It is in other words situation sensitive.
« Last Edit: 03/02/2016 03:07:36 by Space Flow »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #10 on: 03/02/2016 09:40:04 »
I have a nagging feeling in the back of my head that this is not necessarily true.
I'll try and look into it.
OK this what was nagging me;
Two wires that are exactly parallel to one another will feel an attractive force when the current is flowing in the same direction. So the definition of like repels like and opposite attracts opposite is not universal and has to be applied with situation properly defined. Magnetic and electrical fields are geometry sensitive and a force at right angles can end up being applied which is neither attractive nor repulsive.
I have to even withdraw my earlier consent that magnetic fields behave in the manner of your statement.
It is too much of a generalisation.
The statement would have to be presented with all extenuating circumstances involved before an analysis of its validity can properly be made.

It is in other words situation sensitive.

Thank you , your answers are very wisely put and thought was put into the answers.   Ok, so after your answers and the realisation that I am being too general , I will try to think about something more specific - (pauses for a while)

I think the easiest thing to consider may be air,

I am pretty sure that we both agree that air expands when energy is added. (less dense)

And I am pretty sure we both agree when the energy is dispersed from the air it then contracts again.(more dense)

Do we agree?


P.s - I am taking it slow step by step









 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #11 on: 03/02/2016 11:47:34 »
I think the easiest thing to consider may be air,

I am pretty sure that we both agree that air expands when energy is added. (less dense)

And I am pretty sure we both agree when the energy is dispersed from the air it then contracts again.(more dense)

Do we agree?
Again too general. Air in a sealed space will increase in temp and pressure but will not change in density. You will find that generalisations are always difficult.
The only things that I have found to be constants, are the defined constants that make our description of nature work. Everything else is relative. It is situation dependent and should be presented with the specific situation that it is being applied to. Otherwise we fall into the trap of belief systems.
Can you see why none of your statements can be applied to all possible situations?
You change the situation and you can change the validity of the statement.
So unfortunately we have not reached consensus on anything yet. But you are trying to think about the obstacles I am putting in your way, so to me that is movement in the right direction.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #12 on: 03/02/2016 16:37:27 »
I think the easiest thing to consider may be air,

I am pretty sure that we both agree that air expands when energy is added. (less dense)

And I am pretty sure we both agree when the energy is dispersed from the air it then contracts again.(more dense)

Do we agree?
Again too general. Air in a sealed space will increase in temp and pressure but will not change in density. You will find that generalisations are always difficult.
The only things that I have found to be constants, are the defined constants that make our description of nature work. Everything else is relative. It is situation dependent and should be presented with the specific situation that it is being applied to. Otherwise we fall into the trap of belief systems.
Can you see why none of your statements can be applied to all possible situations?
You change the situation and you can change the validity of the statement.
So unfortunately we have not reached consensus on anything yet. But you are trying to think about the obstacles I am putting in your way, so to me that is movement in the right direction.

These obstacles you are putting in the way are not a part of what I I asked, I did not mention air in a container. But in the aim of not trying to force the conversation , ok,


Do we agree that likewise positive charges repel?
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1921
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #13 on: 03/02/2016 19:13:53 »
OK this what was nagging me;
Two wires that are exactly parallel to one another will feel an attractive force when the current is flowing in the same direction. So the definition of like repels like and opposite attracts opposite is not universal
If you imagine looking down the length of the wires the field lines will circulate around the wires in the same direction. However, in between the wires one set of lines will be going up and the other down, so the fields are of opposite polarity. If you extend this out to where the field lines cross the wires, again opposite directions.
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #14 on: 03/02/2016 20:38:29 »
Quote from: Space Flow on 03 February 2016, 14:05:19
OK this what was nagging me;
Two wires that are exactly parallel to one another will feel an attractive force when the current is flowing in the same direction. So the definition of like repels like and opposite attracts opposite is not universal
If you imagine looking down the length of the wires the field lines will circulate around the wires in the same direction. However, in between the wires one set of lines will be going up and the other down, so the fields are of opposite polarity. If you extend this out to where the field lines cross the wires, again opposite directions.
Colin you are of course right.
I only offered it up to show that the statement that like fields are Geometrically sensitive, and the generalisation that opposites attract and like repel is not general and has to be made within the context that it is applied to.
These obstacles you are putting in the way are not a part of what I I asked, I did not mention air in a container. But in the aim of not trying to force the conversation , ok,


Do we agree that likewise positive charges repel?
Just remember that you invited this interchange.
I have been called annally retentive all my life, and take a certain amount of pride in the title.
For me it has always been and always will be about the attention to detail.
Those are the rules I play by.

And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...
Next...
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #15 on: 03/02/2016 21:02:51 »
Quote from: Space Flow on 03 February 2016, 14:05:19
OK this what was nagging me;
Two wires that are exactly parallel to one another will feel an attractive force when the current is flowing in the same direction. So the definition of like repels like and opposite attracts opposite is not universal
If you imagine looking down the length of the wires the field lines will circulate around the wires in the same direction. However, in between the wires one set of lines will be going up and the other down, so the fields are of opposite polarity. If you extend this out to where the field lines cross the wires, again opposite directions.
Colin you are of course right.
I only offered it up to show that the statement that like fields are Geometrically sensitive, and the generalisation that opposites attract and like repel is not general and has to be made within the context that it is applied to.
These obstacles you are putting in the way are not a part of what I I asked, I did not mention air in a container. But in the aim of not trying to force the conversation , ok,


Do we agree that likewise positive charges repel?
Just remember that you invited this interchange.
I have been called annally retentive all my life, and take a certain amount of pride in the title.
For me it has always been and always will be about the attention to detail.
Those are the rules I play by.

And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...
Next...

Ok, so if we had two bodies that were equally  positive charged, do we agree that the bodies would repel each other?
« Last Edit: 03/02/2016 21:05:26 by Thebox »
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #16 on: 03/02/2016 21:34:36 »
Yes. If their charge is all that is taken into consideration.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #17 on: 03/02/2016 21:49:01 »
Yes. If their charge is all that is taken into consideration.


Ok thank you, so now let us consider a single object that has positive charge, what do we think holds the positve charge in situe ?   

Do we agree that the positive charge must be held by a negative, that a positive charge is attracted to a negative, and if it were not for the negative, the positve charge would just disperse by its own repulsiveness?
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #18 on: 03/02/2016 22:26:44 »
Ok thank you, so now let us consider a single object that has positive charge, what do we think holds the positve charge in situe ?   

Do we agree that the positive charge must be held by a negative, that a positive charge is attracted to a negative, and if it were not for the negative, the positve charge would just disperse by its own repulsiveness?
First your single object that has a positive charge. Lets look at the iconic and original positive charge.
The first stage of complexity of fundamental particles that at the moment we are aware off is when 3 Quarks get together in the right combination to form a neutron.
The Quarks are seen to have partial charge so that 3 together make up a balanced system of equal positive and negative potential (neutral).
Now a neutron on its own is no fun and it gets bored so after a short amount of time it organises its internal balance so that it can separate part of the electroweak force that is its inheritance from the Quark combination, and so form polarity. There is now an imbalance. A negative part of the Electroweak force is now separate from what was a neutral system, leaving behind a positive proton and a separate negative electron. Together they are the basis of the EM force.
Now we can apply an amount of energy to this balanced EM system and knock that electron out of that orbital, leaving behind your positive charge in the form of that proton.
What holds that charge in place? Nothing. Nothing has to as there is nowhere it can go and no way it can be separated from that proton.
It exists only because it doesn't have the electron around to balance it. As long as that situation continues to exist that proton will remain in the unbalanced state that we call a +ion.
Seeing as we have never managed to show proton decay this situation can last for the lifetime of the Universe. Off course it is more likely that at some stage it will manage to couple to another electron and so balance itself again.
So no I do not agree that a positive charge is held in place by a negative. It exists because of the absence of a negative.
No I do not agree that the positive charge can disperse without the presence of a negative. There exists no mechanism by which this can be achieved.
And I certainly don't understand where you could possibly get such a concept that a positive charge has any quality like its own repulsiveness. It will repel other positive charges as we agreed. Not itself.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #19 on: 04/02/2016 09:36:08 »
Ok thank you, so now let us consider a single object that has positive charge, what do we think holds the positve charge in situe ?   

Do we agree that the positive charge must be held by a negative, that a positive charge is attracted to a negative, and if it were not for the negative, the positve charge would just disperse by its own repulsiveness?
First your single object that has a positive charge. Lets look at the iconic and original positive charge.
The first stage of complexity of fundamental particles that at the moment we are aware off is when 3 Quarks get together in the right combination to form a neutron.
The Quarks are seen to have partial charge so that 3 together make up a balanced system of equal positive and negative potential (neutral).
Now a neutron on its own is no fun and it gets bored so after a short amount of time it organises its internal balance so that it can separate part of the electroweak force that is its inheritance from the Quark combination, and so form polarity. There is now an imbalance. A negative part of the Electroweak force is now separate from what was a neutral system, leaving behind a positive proton and a separate negative electron. Together they are the basis of the EM force.
Now we can apply an amount of energy to this balanced EM system and knock that electron out of that orbital, leaving behind your positive charge in the form of that proton.
What holds that charge in place? Nothing. Nothing has to as there is nowhere it can go and no way it can be separated from that proton.
It exists only because it doesn't have the electron around to balance it. As long as that situation continues to exist that proton will remain in the unbalanced state that we call a +ion.
Seeing as we have never managed to show proton decay this situation can last for the lifetime of the Universe. Off course it is more likely that at some stage it will manage to couple to another electron and so balance itself again.
So no I do not agree that a positive charge is held in place by a negative. It exists because of the absence of a negative.
No I do not agree that the positive charge can disperse without the presence of a negative. There exists no mechanism by which this can be achieved.
And I certainly don't understand where you could possibly get such a concept that a positive charge has any quality like its own repulsiveness. It will repel other positive charges as we agreed. Not itself.

The proton is negative that holds a positive charge giving science a false account. The electron is a positive neutralised output.

A+B=C


Quarks are attracted to Quarks by their negativity, it is impossible  for a positive charge to hold in situe, positive always expands. 

A quark can not adjoin a quark if it was positive charged, as you already admitted positive charges repel.

+→←+


That above can not happen

-→←-

the above has to happen or else things don't work

Mass is certainly negative, because if it were positive then things would simply not stick together to form things.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the opposite to repel is attract, the opposite to + is  neg.  These ARE AXIOMS.

gravity is this   +←→+ and -→←-



The whole universe is this.
-→←-

-→←+

+→←-

+←→+

in order from nothing

In red is what science is missing, the missing link as such.

P.s we are talking about forces of attraction and repulsive, I should not need to explain that the arrows represent the work.








« Last Edit: 04/02/2016 11:09:48 by Thebox »
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #20 on: 04/02/2016 12:07:15 »
Off we go into la-la land again.
And you were doing so well...
Pity.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #21 on: 04/02/2016 20:05:06 »
Off we go into la-la land again.
And you were doing so well...
Pity.

Space Flow are you even reading and thinking about what I have put?  try to forget what you know, try to think why neg must me attracted to neg.


It is very obvious if you ask me,


Answer this please, how could a Quark be attracted to a Quark if the Quarks were positive charged?

To quote your earlier comment

''And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...''





« Last Edit: 04/02/2016 20:09:27 by Thebox »
 

Offline Space Flow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • Thanked: 31 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #22 on: 04/02/2016 22:04:56 »
Answer this please, how could a Quark be attracted to a Quark if the Quarks were positive charged?

To quote your earlier comment

''And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...''
And just where did you ever get the idea that Quarks are positive?
That is totally preposterous. Quarks in themselves encompass all 3 forces of nature and are neutral within themselves. Positive and negative charges arise a full two levels of complexity away.
First the quarks get together to form a Neutron by splitting the 3 in 1 forces into 2. The strong and the electroweak. At this stage there is still no polarity. A neutron is neutral.
It is another level above this that polarity comes into existence when the electroweak force is split into the weak and electromagnetic force by releasing into the Universe an electron and a neutrino.
That is the stage that positive and negative come into existence. It is an emergent quality of complexity that is removed from the just Quark level.
Quarks on their own do not even carry a full equal neutral charge let alone positive and negative.
I do read anything you or anyone else comes up with, with an open mind.
That is why I can tell you that your ideas stem from false assumptions.
If you don't understand the basics to start with, then you are building skyscrapers on a base of sand.
The tide will always come back in and that sand will move.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #23 on: 04/02/2016 22:58:58 »
Answer this please, how could a Quark be attracted to a Quark if the Quarks were positive charged?

To quote your earlier comment

''And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...''
And just where did you ever get the idea that Quarks are positive?
That is totally preposterous. Quarks in themselves encompass all 3 forces of nature and are neutral within themselves. Positive and negative charges arise a full two levels of complexity away.
First the quarks get together to form a Neutron by splitting the 3 in 1 forces into 2. The strong and the electroweak. At this stage there is still no polarity. A neutron is neutral.
It is another level above this that polarity comes into existence when the electroweak force is split into the weak and electromagnetic force by releasing into the Universe an electron and a neutrino.
That is the stage that positive and negative come into existence. It is an emergent quality of complexity that is removed from the just Quark level.
Quarks on their own do not even carry a full equal neutral charge let alone positive and negative.
I do read anything you or anyone else comes up with, with an open mind.
That is why I can tell you that your ideas stem from false assumptions.
If you don't understand the basics to start with, then you are building skyscrapers on a base of sand.
The tide will always come back in and that sand will move.

You are mistaken, 3 quarks adjoin to become a proton, a proton is said to be positive charged, the electron shell is said to be negative charged, and the neutron for some reason they placed inside the electron shell,.

However they are also mistaken, quarks are negative because positive and positive repel. 

 

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1879
  • Thanked: 144 times
    • View Profile
Re: For space flow
« Reply #24 on: 04/02/2016 23:08:08 »
Answer this please, how could a Quark be attracted to a Quark if the Quarks were positive charged?

To quote your earlier comment

''And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...''
And just where did you ever get the idea that Quarks are positive?
That is totally preposterous. Quarks in themselves encompass all 3 forces of nature and are neutral within themselves. Positive and negative charges arise a full two levels of complexity away.
First the quarks get together to form a Neutron by splitting the 3 in 1 forces into 2. The strong and the electroweak. At this stage there is still no polarity. A neutron is neutral.
It is another level above this that polarity comes into existence when the electroweak force is split into the weak and electromagnetic force by releasing into the Universe an electron and a neutrino.
That is the stage that positive and negative come into existence. It is an emergent quality of complexity that is removed from the just Quark level.
Quarks on their own do not even carry a full equal neutral charge let alone positive and negative.
I do read anything you or anyone else comes up with, with an open mind.
That is why I can tell you that your ideas stem from false assumptions.
If you don't understand the basics to start with, then you are building skyscrapers on a base of sand.
The tide will always come back in and that sand will move.

You are mistaken, 3 quarks adjoin to become a proton, a proton is said to be positive charged, the electron shell is said to be negative charged, and the neutron for some reason they placed inside the electron shell,.

However they are also mistaken, quarks are negative because positive and positive repel.

Positively charged particles do push apart from each other, but at very, very close ranges, the strong force can overcome the electrostatic repulsion. But only to a point. Up and down quarks have different charges (+2/3 and 1/3), a neutron contains 2/31/31/3 = 0 charge and protons contain 2/3+2/31/3 = 1 charge. I am unaware of any particles made of three positively or three negatively charged quarks.

Also atomic nuclei containing more than one proton must have at least one neutron for the strong force to win over the electrostatic repulsion.

Can you at least try to do some research about what scientists say before saying that they are wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron
I know that wikipedia uses a lot of jargon, so I also highly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B015EL0QRG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: For space flow
« Reply #24 on: 04/02/2016 23:08:08 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums