[Yahya (OP)]

matter consists infinitely of pieces of matter , in chemical interactions it interacts infinitely , electrons are an infinite  flow of energy light as well is an infinite flow of energy.

gravity is tendency to fulfill displacement  in space caused by a mass M. the displacement in space is equivalent to the mass itself. space press mass and cause potential from positive(space existence) to neutral ( space displacement) force decreases by the increment in distance is because of the engineering of space , the same as pictures becomes smaller at far distances. if a have two masses m and M connected to each other by a bar and a third mass attracts them , then when they move farther from the third mass the force vectors should narrow to each other the decrease in the angle between the force vectors cause decrement in the force on the two masses m and M by the third mass , but the same could be applied on a mass m considering it consists of several masses

mass is energy and magnetism is also energy , that is some kind of mass-contained energy- inside a magnet causing magnetic field, the attraction between two magnets is contained energy to contained energy.

electrostatics is contained energy - electrons- to contained energy attraction.

[Bogie_smiles]

If you are posting this as fact, you have omitted the detail that would be necessary to make comparisons to generally accepted science. I will assume that you are posting here in order to present your top line thinking, but that there is a huge amount fo detailed thinking, with links to generally accepted sources behind it.

On that basis, I will present some comments, and see how you react:

matter consists infinitely of pieces of matter

This is confusing, but let me test my understanding, and you can comment as to whether I am anywhere near the intent:
matter takes the form of particles, and particles have a very intense composition of tinier matter-like increments, each of which can be said to represent a hint of the total mass of the particle. There is a lot more to the story, I’m sure, but does this jive with what you're thinking?

… in chemical interactions it interacts infinitely ,

When particles interact chemically, they are in the form of atoms, ions, and molecules, and as such they represent the presence of those particles just described, i.e., with huge numbers of tinier hints of mass. Therefore, when chemistry occurs, it is occurring at the level of the tiny increments of matter that make up the mass of the particles that are reacting. Do you see any merit to that interpretation?

… electrons are an infinite flow of energy light as well is an infinite flow of energy.

Electrons are particles, in the sense that particles are depicted above, i.e., as complex patterns of those tiny hints of mass, but the electron particles are generally thought to occupy “orbital” zones that are shaped as necessary given the components of the nucleons that make up the nucleus of the atoms. The atoms support the presence of the electrons which are swirling about at the speed of light. Again, would you see any correlation here with what you are thinking?

matter consists infinitely of pieces of matter , in chemical interactions it interacts infinitely , electrons are an infinite  flow of energy light as well is an infinite flow of energy.

gravity is tendency to fulfill displacement  in space caused by a mass M. the displacement in space is equivalent to the mass itself. space press mass and cause potential from positive(space existence) to neutral ( space displacement) force decreases by the increment in distance is because of the engineering of space , the same as pictures becomes smaller at far distances. if a have two masses m and M connected to each other by a bar and a third mass attracts them , then when they move farther from the third mass the force vectors should stretch from each other the decrease in the angle between the force vectors cause decrement in the force on the two masses m and M by the third mass , but the same could be applied on a mass m considering it consists of several masses

mass is energy and magnetism is also energy , that is some kind of mass-contained energy- inside a magnet causing magnetic field, the attraction between two magnets is contained energy to contained energy.

electrostatics is contained energy - electrons- to contained energy attraction.

Let’s see if you are open to the detailed interpretations so far, before any further testing of my understand of your meaning and intent.

[Kryptid]

matter consists infinitely of pieces of matter , in chemical interactions it interacts infinitely , electrons are an infinite  flow of energy light as well is an infinite flow of energy.

This is in contradiction to what we know about quantum physics. Matter and energy come in finite quantities called "quanta".

[Yahya (OP)]

This is confusing, but let me test my understanding, and you can comment as to whether I am anywhere near the intent:
matter takes the form of particles, and particles have a very intense composition of tinier matter-like increments, each of which can be said to represent a hint of the total mass of the particle. There is a lot more to the story, I’m sure, but does this jive with what you're thinking?

matter do not consist of any kind of particles it is not discrete but continuous, and I could rewrite science according to my understanding, but if matter consists of quarks , what are these quarks consists of? and what those particles consist of ? etc .  Also what are electrons consists of ? if they are so fundamental , what is their material ? how it gains its mass according to mass-energy principle ?

[Bogie_smiles]

This is confusing, but let me test my understanding, and you can comment as to whether I am anywhere near the intent:
matter takes the form of particles, and particles have a very intense composition of tinier matter-like increments, each of which can be said to represent a hint of the total mass of the particle. There is a lot more to the story, I’m sure, but does this jive with what you're thinking?

matter do not consist of any kind of particles it is not discrete but continuous, and I could rewrite science according to my understanding, but if matter consists of quarks , what are these quarks consists of? and what those particles consist of ? etc .  Also what are electrons consists of ? if they are so fundamental , what is their material ? how it gains its mass according to mass-energy principle ?

What about the premise that particles, which are themselves observable, along with their known interactions, are composed of wave energy; continuous wave motion. Gravitational wave energy that fills all space, and is coming and going to and from all directions at all points in space? Perhaps gravitational waves carry energy, and if so, then when they converge, there would be a momentary high energy density spot at the point of convergence; a hint of mass? Could the mass of particles be the sum of those hints of mass in their particle-space, speculatively? Food for thought. Carry on,

[Yahya (OP)]

is it more logical that when I rub silk with plastic I convert kinetic energy into both heat energy and energy flow -electrons- than some electrons moved from material to material?I do not know who thought of this thinks what then happens chemically

chemical reactions needs energy or -electrons- so again the same -ions- with charges -energy- plays the role in chemical reaction

take an example Na reaction with water to give NaOH there is a lot of scenario that the idea of electrons move from side to side does not explain, I can't dive deep now according to my theory but I will try something:

what makes sodium that it has 11 protons and electrons a sodium ? is it because it has that number? and carbon has less number ? then it is not sodium? matter is infinite and has its characteristics infinitely compound consists of two elements infinitely , a compound to have its own completely different characteristics it should consist of two elements infinitely

water is also infinite but why it seems it has particles and gaps between them ? because of density , I call it absolute density snow has greater density and water has less, if matter is compressed it becomes solid.why light goes through glass ? this could be an example it is not because it goes through its particles' gaps but because glass has less density than other materials and now let the glass thicker and thicker and thicker it won't be able to go through any more.

[Yahya (OP)]

I can explain all physics combined with mechanics of material and chemistry according to my theory. I think the three of them should be one or we have no knowledge an example is rubbing glass with silk what happens chemically when electrons move from side to side? I gave an explanation but perhaps it is well explained according to both chemistry and physics and perhaps it is not.

[Kryptid]

matter do not consist of any kind of particles it is not discrete but continuous,

We know for a fact that it is it made of particles. We've been able to demonstrate the existence of atoms and subatomic particles for over a century now.

and I could rewrite science according to my understanding, but if matter consists of quarks , what are these quarks consists of? and what those particles consist of ? etc .  Also what are electrons consists of ? if they are so fundamental , what is their material ?

Quarks and electrons are not made of a "material". It's the other way around: materials are made of them. According to the best data from experiments, quarks and electrons aren't composed of anything more fundamental than themselves. You can't cut a quark or an electron into smaller pieces.

how it gains its mass according to mass-energy principle ?

They gain mass by interacting with the Higgs field: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism

is it more logical that when I rub silk with plastic I convert kinetic energy into both heat energy and energy flow -electrons- than some electrons moved from material to material?I do not know who thought of this thinks what then happens chemically

Kinetic energy can't create net charge. That would violate conservation of charge. Charge and energy are different properties, each of which has its own corresponding conservation law.

what makes sodium that it has 11 protons and electrons a sodium ? is it because it has that number?

What makes an atom a sodium atom specifically is the number of protons in the nucleus. Having a different number of neutrons will make it a different isotope of sodium but has very little effect on its chemical properties. Changing the number of electrons will make the sodium atom a sodium ion. The number of protons dictates how strongly electrons are attracted to the nucleus, which (along with the laws of quantum mechanics determining electron shell structure), gives sodium the properties that it has which distinguishes it from other elements.

and carbon has less number ? then it is not sodium?

Carbon has 6 protons, which in turns gives it a different electron shell structure and therefore different properties.

matter is infinite and has its characteristics infinitely compound consists of two elements infinitely , a compound to have its own completely different characteristics it should consist of two elements infinitely

We know for a fact that matter isn't infinite: we can see individual atoms and molecules. Here are some examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqLlgIaz1L0, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G7sq5GVhos, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGWSX6pStd0

water is also infinite but why it seems it has particles and gaps between them ?

Individual water molecules have been imaged as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbx2hQJpMOY

because of density , I call it absolute density snow has greater density and water has less

Actually, it's the other way around. Even solid ice is less dense than liquid water.

if matter is compressed it becomes solid.why light goes through glass ?

The electron absorption spectrum of glass is such that visible light photons are rarely absorbed by it.

this could be an example it is not because it goes through its particles' gaps but because glass has less density than other materials

Density is not correlated with transparency. Glass is usually made from silicon dioxide, which has a density of between 2.2 and 2.65 grams per cubic centimeter. Lithium and beryllium metal are both opaque to visible light, even though they are both less dense than glass (0.53 g/cc and 1.85 g/cc, respectively). Clerici solution is as clear as pure water when its density is 4 g/cc, much more than that of glass. Bromine is intermediate in density between glass and Clerici solution (3.1 g/cc), yet it is opaque red-brown.

and now let the glass thicker and thicker and thicker it won't be able to go through any more.

That's because no material is 100% transparent.

[Yahya (OP)]

matter do not consist of any kind of particles it is not discrete but continuous,

We know for a fact that it is it made of particles. We've been able to demonstrate the existence of atoms and subatomic particles for over a century now.

OK I am famous  of being stubborn , I will try not be so , first for ice it is true that it has less density than water it is an exception among most other liquids but I said I do not want to dive deep , but could you just give me an answer what do quarks consist of ? please do not just go and neglect my question. You also did not answer my question about chemical reactions when rubbing silk and plastic ? I could explain things incompletely according to my theory but science which I know and you know should explain everything , right ? so what are the answers to my two questions? what do quarks consist of ?  (not an exact answer but what could possibly ....... ) and what happens chemically when rubbing silk with plastic?

[Kryptid]

but could you just give me an answer what do quarks consist of ? please do not just go and neglect my question.

I already answered this. In accordance with existing evidence, they are not composed of anything simpler than themselves. According to superstring model (which hasn't been confirmed but does do a good job of modeling subatomic particles mathematically), quarks are tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate and rotate. In either case, quarks are not made of any kind of material. They just "are".

You also did not answer my question about chemical reactions when rubbing silk and plastic ? I could explain things incompletely according to my theory but science which I know and you know should explain everything , right ? so what are the answers to my two questions? what do quarks consist of ?  (not an exact answer but what could possibly ....... ) and what happens chemically when rubbing silk with plastic?

Static electricity is caused by a transfer of electrons from one substance to another, causing the material that lost electrons to become positively-charged and the material that gained them to become negatively-charged. On a molecular level, some of the atoms must become ionized in the process. However, the ultimate chemical structure of the materials are basically unchanged.

[Yahya (OP)]

I already answered this. In accordance with existing evidence, they are not composed of anything simpler than themselves. According to superstring model (which hasn't been confirmed but does do a good job of modeling subatomic particles mathematically), quarks are tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate and rotate. In either case, quarks are not made of any kind of material. They just "are".

how they are themselves material but not made of any material ? and what are these strings consists of ?even if the have one dimension , they have length and their length can be divided into infinite pieces that what I call infinite matter in contrary to what known that these pieces should be particles but you should notice that scientists always try to answer the question what it consists of? continuously giving the idea that it is endless.so could you answer my questions again.

Static electricity is caused by a transfer of electrons from one substance to another, causing the material that lost electrons to become positively-charged and the material that gained them to become negatively-charged. On a molecular level, some of the atoms must become ionized in the process. However, the ultimate chemical structure of the materials are basically unchanged.

you did not answer the question , I asked why? there should be any chemical change or reactions as outer orbit's electrons are crucial in chemistry, that a charged atom is in fact an ion.

[Yahya (OP)]

but could you just give me an answer what do quarks consist of ? please do not just go and neglect my question.

I already answered this. In accordance with existing evidence, they are not composed of anything simpler than themselves. According to superstring model (which hasn't been confirmed but does do a good job of modeling subatomic particles mathematically), quarks are tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate and rotate. In either case, quarks are not made of any kind of material. They just "are".

You also did not answer my question about chemical reactions when rubbing silk and plastic ? I could explain things incompletely according to my theory but science which I know and you know should explain everything , right ? so what are the answers to my two questions? what do quarks consist of ?  (not an exact answer but what could possibly ....... ) and what happens chemically when rubbing silk with plastic?

Static electricity is caused by a transfer of electrons from one substance to another, causing the material that lost electrons to become positively-charged and the material that gained them to become negatively-charged. On a molecular level, some of the atoms must become ionized in the process. However, the ultimate chemical structure of the materials are basically unchanged.

it is widely known that quarks are point particles  that can't take up space , could you explain this :
In the part Titled "in physics" line 5 it reads" According to the Standard Model of particle physics, the particles that make up an atom—quarks and electrons—are point particles: they do not take up space"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_divisibility
but here in section "fundamental properties" line 17 it reads " The issue of the radius of the electron is a challenging problem of the modern theoretical physics. The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity. On the other hand, a point-like electron (zero radius) generates serious mathematical difficulties due to the self-energy of the electron tending to infinity"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
lower at line 19 it reads " Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap suggests the upper limit of the particle's radius to be 10−22 meters.[78] The upper bound of the electron radius of 10−18 meters"
could you explain these contradictions?
but it also reads In the part Titled "in physics" line 6 "What makes an atom nevertheless take up space is not any spatially extended "stuff" that "occupies space", and that might be cut into smaller and smaller pieces" which refer to the principle I am proposing here  which is the possibility of infinite divisibility of matter

[Kryptid]

how they are themselves material but not made of any material ?

It depends on how you define "material". If you define material as a "solid object", then they are not material. Quarks are not like little rubber balls that can be cut up into smaller pieces. Any attempt to smash a quark into smaller pieces using a particle accelerator never results in "half a quark". Instead, you get a shower of new particles (none of which are quark constituents). The kinetic energy of the particles colliding creates the new particles due to mass-energy conversion.

and what are these strings consists of ?even if the have one dimension , they have length and their length can be divided into infinite pieces that what I call infinite matter in contrary to what known that these pieces should be particles but you should notice that scientists always try to answer the question what it consists of? continuously giving the idea that it is endless.so could you answer my questions again.

Superstrings aren't made of any material either. They are at the smallest length scale, the Planck length, below which space does not have any mathematical meaning. So you cannot cut a superstring into smaller pieces because size is meaningless below the Planck length.

you did not answer the question , I asked why? there should be any chemical change or reactions as outer orbit's electrons are crucial in chemistry, that a charged atom is in fact an ion.

Why what? Why do the electrons move from one material to the other? Is that what you're asking? Different atoms have different electron affinities. When you rub one material against another, the kinetic energy supplied can be enough to dislodge valence electrons from an atom and transfer it to another. The atoms with the strongest electron affinities will tend to accumulate more electrons.

it is widely known that quarks are point particles  that can't take up space , could you explain this :
In the part Titled "in physics" line 5 it reads" According to the Standard Model of particle physics, the particles that make up an atom—quarks and electrons—are point particles: they do not take up space"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_divisibility
but here in section "fundamental properties" line 17 it reads " The issue of the radius of the electron is a challenging problem of the modern theoretical physics. The admission of the hypothesis of a finite radius of the electron is incompatible to the premises of the theory of relativity. On the other hand, a point-like electron (zero radius) generates serious mathematical difficulties due to the self-energy of the electron tending to infinity"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron
lower at line 19 it reads " Observation of a single electron in a Penning trap suggests the upper limit of the particle's radius to be 10−22 meters.[78] The upper bound of the electron radius of 10−18 meters"
could you explain these contradictions?

Electrons are point-like to the best resolution of our experiments. If they are superstrings, then they would not actually be points but would indeed be far too small for us to perceive their size with even our best experimental equipment. The upper-bound of an electron's radius is just that: a maximum possible size. It could be smaller than that, but not larger than that. I do believe I've read about the problem of finite-sized particles violating relativity, because they allow signals to propagate through them faster than light. That problem is avoided if particles are string-like. If electrons are superstrings, then they do not have a "radius" because they are not three-dimensional objects. They would also not be zero in size either.

but it also reads In the part Titled "in physics" line 6 "What makes an atom nevertheless take up space is not any spatially extended "stuff" that "occupies space", and that might be cut into smaller and smaller pieces" which refer to the principle I am proposing here  which is the possibility of infinite divisibility of matter

You can split atoms. That is well known. You can, in a sense, even split protons (although this creates new particles that prevent the constituent quarks from being isolated). There is no known way to split quarks and electrons. There is something called the "preon model" which proposes that quarks and electrons are composed of even smaller particles called preons, but no experimental evidence in favor of their existence has yet come forth.

[Yahya (OP)]

According to superstring model which hasn't been confirmed

because it is just craziness and has nothing to do with reality

but does do a good job of modeling subatomic particles mathematically

because there is a real problem at the standard model

Superstrings aren't made of any material either

what are superstrings? how to prove its existence ? you said the theory is not confirmed yet , then there is not a proof , it is something unclear that does not have a proof of its existence but tries pathetically to solve the contradiction I pointed out above , right ? so what are these superstring and what is the proof of there existence ?

[Yahya (OP)]

I do not need a proof because its just simple mathematics and simple concept what I should present is explanation to physical and chemical phenomena according to my understanding

Why what? Why do the electrons move from one material to the other? Is that what you're asking?

what I asked is why shouldn't there be any chemical change ?losing and gaining electrons is crucial in chemistry they should become ions or any other chemical change.

[Kryptid]

because it is just craziness and has nothing to do with reality

Can you demonstrate this? How well do you understand superstring theory?

because there is a real problem at the standard model

No one denies this.

what are superstrings? how to prove its existence ? you said the theory is not confirmed yet , then there is not a proof , it is something unclear that does not have a proof of its existence but tries pathetically to solve the contradiction I pointed out above , right ? so what are these superstring and what is the proof of there existence ?

There is no proof of superstrings. I never said that there was. I only pointed out that the superstring model does a good job of explaining what we see in the physical world. That doesn't prove that it's correct, but it does show that it is worth further investigation.

I do not need a proof because its just simple mathematics and simple concept what I should present is explanation to physical and chemical phenomena according to my understanding

Your explanation is at odds with the evidence. We have directly imaged atoms and have repeatedly observed that some subatomic particles can't be broken down into smaller pieces. Matter is not infinitely divisible.

what I asked is why shouldn't there be any chemical change ?losing and gaining electrons is crucial in chemistry they should become ions or any other chemical change.

If you want to consider it a chemical change because electron transfer is involved, then fine. It's a very minor one, though.

[Yahya (OP)]

Can you demonstrate this? How well do you understand superstring theory?

I do not understand it I asked what superstrings are but yo did not answer , what are they ? I see them unclear concept .

There is no proof of superstrings. I never said that there was. I only pointed out that the superstring model does a good job of explaining what we see in the physical world. That doesn't prove that it's correct, but it does show that it is worth further investigation.

So you are talking about superstrings which are unclear entities - I still need to know what they
are- in addition they may exist or not?

superstring model does a good job of explaining what we see in the physical world

I can tell any theory that explain the contradictions but not verified in addition it is not just a theory they are entities, the theory being presented unclear is to escape from the clear idea of infinite divisibility .

If you want to consider it a chemical change because electron transfer is involved, then fine. It's a very minor one, though.

I don't understand , do you imply that there might be any chemical change in the process? what is it ?

[Yahya (OP)]

I will try to explain other phenomena:
when I rub silk with plastic I convert kinetic energy into both heat energy and energy -electrons- to give charges.

light is a continuous flow of energy , some materials have the characteristics to absorb light as energy and just flow it through the material as energy.

chemical reaction needs energy , giving the energy needed in chemical reactions using electric current flow through a liquid.

some material can absorb light -energy- other can absorb electric current -energy-

frequency is a change in the energy flow intensity at each interval of time. Electromagnetic wave are a flow of energy with frequency , electric current -due to electromagnetic waves- is also a flow of energy with frequency .

[Yahya (OP)]

in a capacitor a metal sheet tries to absorb energy flow -current- so it is stuck in the other metal sheet

[Kryptid]

I do not understand it I asked what superstrings are but yo did not answer , what are they ? I see them unclear concept.

Superstrings are tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate and rotate. I already said that.

So you are talking about superstrings which are unclear entities - I still need to know what they
are- in addition they may exist or not?

Again, we don't know if they exist or not. At the moment, they are just useful mathematical tools.

I can tell any theory that explain the contradictions but not verified in addition it is not just a theory they are entities, the theory being presented unclear is to escape from the clear idea of infinite divisibility .

As I've said many times before, infinite divisibility is known to be false. You can't cut electrons up.

I don't understand , do you imply that there might be any chemical change in the process? what is it ?

Ionization (if you consider that to be a chemical change, that is).