0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Superstrings are tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate and rotate. I already said that.
Ionization (if you consider that to be a chemical change, that is).
matter do not consist of any kind of particles it is not discrete but continuous, and I could rewrite science according to my understanding,
Quote from: Yahya on 04/06/2018 04:49:53matter do not consist of any kind of particles it is not discrete but continuous, and I could rewrite science according to my understanding,That's just plain wrong.We have pictures of atoms, we can count them. We can weigh them.Your perspective is just childish.
We have pictures of atoms, we can count them. We can weigh them.
what are these strings ?
how they are formed ?
what you mean when you say they are string? the string I know is a string but when you say they are strings then there is similarity between them and known strings ? you says something unknown and has nothing to do with known strings?
if they are not matter what are they?
could explain more so that I have ideas about what are these things?
no plastic and silk do not become ions
but according to the chemical explanation then there should be chemical change
but there is not , it is a contradiction in basic physics and chemistry , could you explain more?
what makes for sure the existence of atoms? that they are for sure exists?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/06/2018 20:41:33Quote from: Yahya on 04/06/2018 04:49:53matter do not consist of any kind of particles it is not discrete but continuous, and I could rewrite science according to my understanding,That's just plain wrong.We have pictures of atoms, we can count them. We can weigh them.Your perspective is just childish.OK, you have good strict criticism , my perspective is simple because I don't think the need for complexity . Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/06/2018 20:41:33We have pictures of atoms, we can count them. We can weigh them.what makes for sure the existence of atoms? that they are for sure exists?
Can you read?I ask that because, you seem not to understand plain English.I point out that "We have pictures of atoms, we can count them. We can weigh them."
you can't resort to theories that aren't verified
I still do not understand , we have pictures for Jesus
Then you can't resort to your own unverified "theory" here in this thread.
but the issue in fundamental physics still exists , I propose my theory for four reasons:
first: it is just like saying "why not?"
if the contradiction states that any fundamental particle will result in other fundamental particles , then why not? why not infinite divisibility?
second: it is intuitive to say that matter is just matter not atoms nor its components, so if intuition is valid then why complexity?
third: it is simple thing , you make things complex if they need so , if they do not need , why complexity? if the complex atomic model fails somehow, then why complexity?
fourth :there is also a big , fundamental and silly issue in particle physics
Quote from: Yahya on 06/06/2018 23:18:33there is also a big , fundamental and silly issue in particle physicsThat issue being what, exactly?
there is also a big , fundamental and silly issue in particle physics
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_divisibilitybut 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
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"
You could figuratively cut an atom into smaller "pieces" until all you have left are individual subatomic particles. Now how do you propose cutting those particles up further?
simply just like a number line with one unit it can be divided infinitely but at the end it would remain one unite length, in fact the process of cutting particles into pieces infinitely does not exist , what exists is matter's volume just like the number line one unit.
Quote from: Yahya on 07/06/2018 00:21:29simply just like a number line with one unit it can be divided infinitely but at the end it would remain one unite length, in fact the process of cutting particles into pieces infinitely does not exist , what exists is matter's volume just like the number line one unit.Number lines are mathematical concepts, not physical objects like subatomic particles are.
I tried to interpret the picture and feeling in my mind.
I see a particle of lead as a lead ball , you can cut up a lead ball until you end up with another lead ball etc to infinity what maters is matter itself not what you end up with.
but the process itself does not exist
what exists is that matter is infinitely contained as mass
trying to split it infinitely will result in infinite divisibility similar to infinite field density decrements.
To sum up your argument, you are essentially saying, "matter is infinitely-divisible, but you can't actually divide it infinitely". This is a self-contradictory statement. If you can't divide something, then it is indivisible.
Quote from: Yahya on 07/06/2018 00:37:22what exists is that matter is infinitely contained as massI can't make sense of this statement.