0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What do you mean? I am in a new theories section, the year is 2017 so that is when it was done and I am writing it as we speak. However I know you would never be satisfied with that, so how about we go into the mechanics of it that uses present information?
Quote from: Thebox on 04/10/2017 22:02:45What do you mean? I am in a new theories section, the year is 2017 so that is when it was done and I am writing it as we speak. However I know you would never be satisfied with that, so how about we go into the mechanics of it that uses present information? So am I to believe that you are the one who performed the experiment that established that positive and negative fields can combine to produce solidity in atoms? What equipment did you use? Have the results been peer reviewed?
Quote from: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 22:05:47Quote from: Thebox on 04/10/2017 22:02:45What do you mean? I am in a new theories section, the year is 2017 so that is when it was done and I am writing it as we speak. However I know you would never be satisfied with that, so how about we go into the mechanics of it that uses present information? So am I to believe that you are the one who performed the experiment that established that positive and negative fields can combine to produce solidity in atoms? What equipment did you use? Have the results been peer reviewed?Ok you want an experiment, will a thought experiment do using present information ? The equipment we will use is bitmap and you can peer-view this and give an objective judgement?
Ok you want an experiment, will a thought experiment do using present information ? The equipment we will use is bitmap and you can peer-view this and give an objective judgement?
Quote from: Thebox on 04/10/2017 22:08:30Quote from: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 22:05:47Quote from: Thebox on 04/10/2017 22:02:45What do you mean? I am in a new theories section, the year is 2017 so that is when it was done and I am writing it as we speak. However I know you would never be satisfied with that, so how about we go into the mechanics of it that uses present information? So am I to believe that you are the one who performed the experiment that established that positive and negative fields can combine to produce solidity in atoms? What equipment did you use? Have the results been peer reviewed?Ok you want an experiment, will a thought experiment do using present information ? The equipment we will use is bitmap and you can peer-view this and give an objective judgement?Dont be ridiculous. You think a thought experiment provides physical evidence? You are more deluded than I thought.
Quote from: Thebox on 04/10/2017 22:08:30Ok you want an experiment, will a thought experiment do using present information ? The equipment we will use is bitmap and you can peer-view this and give an objective judgement?No. I said, and I quote, "Show us a single confirmed, observed example of positive and negative fields merging to produce solidity" to which you answered with "Atoms". You are therefore saying that it has been confirmed that atoms are an example of positive and negative fields merging to produce solidity. The only way this could have been confirmed is if an actual, physical experiment had already been done to confirm it. Therefore, you are saying that such an experiment has already been carried out. So tell me, what was the actual, physical experiment?Or did you lie?
I think you are reading ambiguous to what I said. If you want to confirm solidity of atoms just drop some more atoms on the floor. This will confirm solidity sure enough. You need to understand the mechanics then maybe you would not be so sceptical.
Quote from: The Spoon on 04/10/2017 22:10:54Quote from: Thebox on 04/10/2017 22:08:30Quote from: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 22:05:47Quote from: Thebox on 04/10/2017 22:02:45What do you mean? I am in a new theories section, the year is 2017 so that is when it was done and I am writing it as we speak. However I know you would never be satisfied with that, so how about we go into the mechanics of it that uses present information? So am I to believe that you are the one who performed the experiment that established that positive and negative fields can combine to produce solidity in atoms? What equipment did you use? Have the results been peer reviewed?Ok you want an experiment, will a thought experiment do using present information ? The equipment we will use is bitmap and you can peer-view this and give an objective judgement?Dont be ridiculous. You think a thought experiment provides physical evidence? You are more deluded than I thought. For now a thought experiment will help you understand, we may be able to do a physical experiment and that is why if you are a real scientist you might be able to help. I have done an experiment before where I bent fire around a magnetic field. A piece of cigarette paper in the center of the field did not even scorch. But for now maybe the thought experiment to see if we can agree on some basics in the form of a question, i.e how can?
Quote from: Thebox on 04/10/2017 22:17:18I think you are reading ambiguous to what I said. If you want to confirm solidity of atoms just drop some more atoms on the floor. This will confirm solidity sure enough. You need to understand the mechanics then maybe you would not be so sceptical. I didn't ask what experiment confirmed that atomic matter was solid. I asked specifically what experiment confirmed that this solidity was due to the merger of positive and negative fields. Go back and read my post again.
The mechanics prove it
Quote from: Thebox on 04/10/2017 22:25:15The mechanics prove itWhat existing mechanics prove that negative and positive fields can merge to produce solidity? Tell me using known, existing science and only known, existing science.
I would like to ''see'' if there is any errors in my thinking and logic.
The earths magnetic field. It opposes the sunlight and has solidity. (Newtons third law. ) it pushes back applying opposing force.
At the very most, it can set up a precedent for believing something is true. Only after sufficiently thorough experimental investigation can something be scientifically accepted as being true.
Heck no. Light travels unhindered through a magnetic field.
I don't disagree with that. I am presenting premise , a thought experiment that has premise for further investigation. At this time I am not saying this is any sort of axiom fact. I am trying to develop the notion further. If you helped it might get there a bit quicker.
Only if light works like you believe it to work. I do not consider the earths magnetic field to be just as magnetic field. The N-field is the unification of the charge field, the polarity field, the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field. You are not considering this and how it opposes the solar winds and how it decrease the amount of UV we get.
You were very much presenting this as a fact. You can't simultaneously say, "I can prove this is true" and "I'm not sure this is true".
You are stepping outside of established physics again.
Well the mechanics prove it to be true, but I am not the one in the world who can say it is true. That would be for science and peers to decide.
Ok let us step back inside physics and present single polarity field solidity, i.e likewise magnet polarities. Quite clearly we can move one magnet with another magnet and the magnets never touch , providing adequate justification that the likewise field of each magnet is relatively solid to each other. The field creates a ''pole'' between magnets. I can push this magnet about using this invisible ''pole''.
Science has already decided that it is not true. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt how atoms are structured. That alone is grounds enough to dismiss your model.
Magnetic poles are not a merger of positive and negative fields to produce solidity.