0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 17:25:36 singleton set Until you define that you are just proving me right about you posting nonsense.It has a definition in maths, but that doesn't seem to be the one you are using, because this "Now a is all the same polarity, and {a} is the volume of a. " would be a total non sequitur in that case.Our singleton has 1 element which has a volume, all points of this volume are likewise in polarity. Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 17:26:54My theory is different, but my theory also works and shows some of your theory cannot work. That's the problem my friend. You have shown nothing of the sort.
singleton set
My theory is different, but my theory also works and shows some of your theory cannot work. That's the problem my friend.
I am not proposing electric charge, I am proposing polarity. Polarity is the rudiment of existence, without opposite polarities there can be no physical Universe. a + b = everything My theory is a lot bigger than I first thought, it explains everything in a general manner, the intricate detail math , admitting will be difficult. Try answering my questions I pose , that is the only way you may understand, your answers will lead to the same conclusion in this conceptual argument.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 17:49:37I am not proposing electric charge, I am proposing polarity. Polarity is the rudiment of existence, without opposite polarities there can be no physical Universe. a + b = everything My theory is a lot bigger than I first thought, it explains everything in a general manner, the intricate detail math , admitting will be difficult. Try answering my questions I pose , that is the only way you may understand, your answers will lead to the same conclusion in this conceptual argument. If you're not talking about the polarity of electric charge or the polarity of magnetic poles, then what kind of polarity are you talking about?
Dude you have a big problem with cold reading everything. In mathematics, a singleton, also known as a unit set, is a set with exactly one element. For example, the set {0} is a singleton. The term is also used for a 1-tuple (a sequence with one member).
the common factor being polarity,
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 17:58:14the common factor being polarity,Polarity of what?
The polarity of whatever, magnetic polarity, charge polarity, field polarity, polarity means the same thing in any instant.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 17:51:20Dude you have a big problem with cold reading everything. In mathematics, a singleton, also known as a unit set, is a set with exactly one element. For example, the set {0} is a singleton. The term is also used for a 1-tuple (a sequence with one member). know about singleton sets.However they have nothing to do with the rest of your post. They are an abstract mathematical entity with no physical properties.So your post made no sense.Would you like to try again?
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 18:00:27The polarity of whatever, magnetic polarity, charge polarity, field polarity, polarity means the same thing in any instant. No it doesn't. The polarity of an electric field is not the same as the polarity of a magnetic field. They behave differently.
Likewise polarities repulse , opposite polarities attract, they do not work differently although they may have different characteristics.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 18:04:02Likewise polarities repulse , opposite polarities attract, they do not work differently although they may have different characteristics. That isn't true of gravity or the strong nuclear force.
But yes it is, if you answer the questions, you might realise why it is true. ƒ:g(F) = {a+b} + {a+b} Because all the statements are true in a truth table. I understand the strong nuclear force, it is a bit like a Chinese finger puzzle.
it is obvious what I am saying
I understand the strong nuclear force, it is a bit like a Chinese finger puzzle.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 18:12:14But yes it is, if you answer the questions, you might realise why it is true. ƒ:g(F) = {a+b} + {a+b} Because all the statements are true in a truth table. I understand the strong nuclear force, it is a bit like a Chinese finger puzzle. I don't need your tables or whatever to know that like attracts like for gravity and that like attracts like for the strong nuclear force at moderate ranges and like repels like at closer range. If your reasoning is at odds with observed experimental data, then the error is in your reasoning.
My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data. Is all a attracted to a,bIs all b attracted to a,b yes and yes , True and true Is all a,b attracted to a,b yes , true.
So it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 18:17:13My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data. Is all a attracted to a,bIs all b attracted to a,b yes and yes , True and true Is all a,b attracted to a,b yes , true.That's neither reasoning, nor data
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 18:19:13Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 18:17:13My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data. Is all a attracted to a,bIs all b attracted to a,b yes and yes , True and true Is all a,b attracted to a,b yes , true.That's neither reasoning, nor dataAre you denying Coulomb's laws?
Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 18:20:42Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 18:19:13Quote from: Thebox on 25/02/2018 18:17:13My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data. Is all a attracted to a,bIs all b attracted to a,b yes and yes , True and true Is all a,b attracted to a,b yes , true.That's neither reasoning, nor dataAre you denying Coulomb's laws? Coulomb's law is for the electromagnetic force. I'm talking about gravity and the strong nuclear force.