0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 28/09/2017 14:38:12Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 23:16:39Quote from: Thebox on 27/09/2017 20:33:12Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.Everybody else thinks it proves Maxwell's equations.You think an equation can have purpose on its own? No the process is first , the maths explains the process , the maths does not explain Q.F.SQFS is something you made up. You are the one who needs to explain it. So far you don't even seem to understand what that means.In the meantime, Maxwell's equations (and the physics that goes with them) explain the force between two magnets.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 23:16:39Quote from: Thebox on 27/09/2017 20:33:12Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.Everybody else thinks it proves Maxwell's equations.You think an equation can have purpose on its own? No the process is first , the maths explains the process , the maths does not explain Q.F.S
Quote from: Thebox on 27/09/2017 20:33:12Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.Everybody else thinks it proves Maxwell's equations.
Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.
I understand my own notion .
Quote from: Thebox on 28/09/2017 20:29:58I understand my own notion .Nobody else does.Whose fault is that?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/09/2017 19:21:35Quote from: Thebox on 28/09/2017 20:29:58I understand my own notion .Nobody else does.Whose fault is that?I'll throw in a second vote of this stuff not making sense (especially in light of known science).
ok?
Quote from: Thebox on 29/09/2017 22:45:08ok?No, even with proper punctuation etc, it's cargo cult science at best.In particular this "giving both fields relative Physicality." is a total non sequitur.It does not follow from what you have said.You just stuffed it in and hoped that people would accept it.Would you like to try again with more stuff of the form " because a, therefore b".BTW, we are not a tough crowd.Reality is much tougher.
In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions.
And there is ... an ''ether''
Quote from: Thebox on 30/09/2017 12:29:38In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions. Not really.Quote from: Thebox on 30/09/2017 12:29:38And there is ... an ''ether''No there isn't.We checked.
In physics, a state of matter is one of the distinct forms in which matter can exist. Four states of matter are observable in everyday life: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. ..
Quote from: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 13:33:24Quote from: Thebox on 30/09/2017 12:29:38In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions. Not really.Quote from: Thebox on 30/09/2017 12:29:38And there is ... an ''ether''No there isn't.We checked.Well like normal MR Chemist your ability to not be able to think certainly shows in most of your replies. You can't find or detect an ''ether'' that is dielectric and has μ0. I know you can't understand that the dielectric properties of space are of space and not of a spacial field such as the Higg's field. The properties of nothing being dielectric is a rather confusing thought I must agree. But to suggest a dielectric field occupying space would suppose intelligent design. Are you really suggesting that two likewise fields do not oppose force on each other? The fields have mass like it or not because I didn't write these rules of forces etc. QuoteIn physics, a state of matter is one of the distinct forms in which matter can exist. Four states of matter are observable in everyday life: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. ..Quantum fields are a state of matter , they are relatively solids to each other. qfm.jpg (34.48 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5766 times)added- When I turn on the light switch I am emitting an electromagnetic field that permeates isotropic at c through the Box's dielectric field (a property of space). Now any object that is within radius (r) of a certain magnitude has cause and affect on each others fields. .....cause that's what the mechanics sayadded- cause if the space had any polarity , fields would not be able to permeate.
Quote from: Thebox on 02/10/2017 14:55:32Quote from: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 13:33:24Quote from: Thebox on 30/09/2017 12:29:38In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions. Not really.Quote from: Thebox on 30/09/2017 12:29:38And there is ... an ''ether''No there isn't.We checked.Well like normal MR Chemist your ability to not be able to think certainly shows in most of your replies. You can't find or detect an ''ether'' that is dielectric and has μ0. I know you can't understand that the dielectric properties of space are of space and not of a spacial field such as the Higg's field. The properties of nothing being dielectric is a rather confusing thought I must agree. But to suggest a dielectric field occupying space would suppose intelligent design. Are you really suggesting that two likewise fields do not oppose force on each other? The fields have mass like it or not because I didn't write these rules of forces etc. QuoteIn physics, a state of matter is one of the distinct forms in which matter can exist. Four states of matter are observable in everyday life: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. ..Quantum fields are a state of matter , they are relatively solids to each other. qfm.jpg (34.48 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5766 times)added- When I turn on the light switch I am emitting an electromagnetic field that permeates isotropic at c through the Box's dielectric field (a property of space). Now any object that is within radius (r) of a certain magnitude has cause and affect on each others fields. .....cause that's what the mechanics sayadded- cause if the space had any polarity , fields would not be able to permeate. So you are proposing the existence of something that cant find or detect? That defines something that does not exist. I dont thin kyou understand what dielectric means. 'μ0' is meaningless it has no units and appears to be two characters you have picked randomly to represent something and expect us to guess what it means. The rest of your post is gibberish.
The cube will weigh less on the Moon than on Earth, but it will not have less mass.
First of all μ0 means zero permeability.
Quote from: Thebox on 02/10/2017 22:37:01First of all μ0 means zero permeability.Not in the real world.it's not zero, its (still) about 1.6 µH/m just as I told you beforehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeabilityPlease make up another term for your made up idea.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/10/2017 07:27:03Quote from: Thebox on 02/10/2017 22:37:01First of all μ0 means zero permeability.Not in the real world.it's not zero, its (still) about 1.6 µH/m just as I told you beforehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeabilityPlease make up another term for your made up idea.A vacuum on Earth in experiment or the almost vacuum of space?
Quote from: Thebox on 07/10/2017 11:14:23Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/10/2017 07:27:03Quote from: Thebox on 02/10/2017 22:37:01First of all μ0 means zero permeability.Not in the real world.it's not zero, its (still) about 1.6 µH/m just as I told you beforehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeabilityPlease make up another term for your made up idea.A vacuum on Earth in experiment or the almost vacuum of space?If you had read the linked article you wouldn't be asking this question.