Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 17:04:19
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 17:49:54
Surely I deserve some credit for this one?This forum doesn't have a "performance art" section.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 18:04:39
Well objectively I say that is a piece of science better than yourself could ever do. I know it is good field theory because the mechanics work.Surely I deserve some credit for this one?This forum doesn't have a "performance art" section.
It is a shame you do not have the intellect to know good science when you see it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 18:17:46
OH!, it's meant to be science is it?Well objectively I say that is a piece of science better than yourself could ever do. I know it is good field theory because the mechanics work.Surely I deserve some credit for this one?This forum doesn't have a "performance art" section.
It is a shame you do not have the intellect to know good science when you see it.
I must have missed the testable predictions.
Could you list them please?
Incidentally, since you haven't seen any of the science I have done, you are not in a position to judge it objectively so this "Well objectively I say that is a piece of science better than yourself could ever do. " isn't true.
Which, in turn, speaks volumes about how well you can do science.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 18:34:25
Well what is interesting is that I have never in all this time observed you offering any of your own science. I have observed you presenting information you have remembered from education that you was told to remember or you would fail. However I observe no individual creativity or thinking from yourself what so ever.OH!, it's meant to be science is it?Well objectively I say that is a piece of science better than yourself could ever do. I know it is good field theory because the mechanics work.Surely I deserve some credit for this one?This forum doesn't have a "performance art" section.
It is a shame you do not have the intellect to know good science when you see it.
I must have missed the testable predictions.
Could you list them please?
Incidentally, since you haven't seen any of the science I have done, you are not in a position to judge it objectively so this "Well objectively I say that is a piece of science better than yourself could ever do. " isn't true.
Which, in turn, speaks volumes about how well you can do science.
I don't care about predictions which are not really ''predictions'' they are measurements. These measurements the existing ''predictions'' that go along with my explanation of it all.
Your predictions are the same predictions as my video.
p.s If you are a good scientist then why can't you use your ''loaf'' and help fill in the missing peaces to the puzzle of gravity mechanism?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 20:43:52
I don't care about predictionsThen you are not interested in science.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/09/2017 20:53:02
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 20:58:35
I've seen you talk about this before. We already know what gives matter its solidity. It's mainly due to the electric repulsion between the electrons in the valence orbitals of neighboring atoms, which keeps them from getting too close to each other. The Pauli exclusion principle probably has a role too, in that it keeps more than two electrons from occupying the same orbital. No need to propose N-fields to explain something that can already be explained with known physics.I think you are missing the bigger picture and a united field theory. This notion of mine is correct and is not trying to explain any existing theory. It is a brand new theory , new being the key word.
added-
It's mainly due to the electric repulsion between the electrons in the valence orbitals of neighbouring atoms, and the repulsion between protons v protons of the nucleus .
Post by: Kryptid on 25/09/2017 21:04:38
I think you are missing the bigger picture and a united field theory.
The "bigger picture" being what?
Quote
This notion of mine is correct
You don't have any experimental evidence to back it up, so how can you say that? All you have is speculation and assertions. Those are not evidence.
Quote
and is not trying to explain any existing theory. It is a brand new theory , new being the key word.
Which is completely unnecessary. A well-explained phenomenon does not need any new explanation.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 21:07:18
added-LOOK what I say in the video.
It's mainly due to the electric repulsion between the electrons in the valence orbitals of neighbouring atoms, and the repulsion between protons v protons of the nucleus
added-
It's mainly due to the electric repulsion between the electrons in the valence orbitals of neighbouring atoms, and the repulsion between protons v protons of the nucleus.
Quote
Which is completely unnecessary. A well-explained phenomenon does not need any new explanation.
I beg to differ, I explain it better .
A+B=N
N is a neutron or what you call an atom, a ''particle'' itself does not need to exist, only the energy has to exist to form an atom.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/09/2017 21:11:46
LOOK what I say in the video.
I watched your video. You only gave assertions, not evidence.
Quote
I beg to differ, I explain it better
According to what evidence?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 21:14:58
The present evidence for one.LOOK what I say in the video.
I watched your video. You only gave assertions, not evidence.QuoteI beg to differ, I explain it better
According to what evidence?
Opposite fields attract
Likewise fields repulse
Basic physics.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/09/2017 21:20:18
The present evidence for one.
Opposite fields attract
Likewise fields repulse
Basic physics.
So how is that any different from the existing theory that electron shells in atoms repel each other because they are of the same charge? No need to call it something new.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 21:25:39
You would be missing something there, like protons repulse protons and also that does not explain how the two opposite fields merge and the mechanics of the merge and after the merge. i.e G=N-field.The present evidence for one.
Opposite fields attract
Likewise fields repulse
Basic physics.
So how is that any different from the existing theory that electron shells in atoms repel each other because they are of the same charge? No need to call it something new.
Science see's an object that is neutral as neutral. The N-field view shows that that the merge retains individual properties still of the electron field and proton field. So therefore concluding the N-field to also be the cause and mechanics of gravity. The mechanism we did not know.
Also every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the opposite action to the inverse square law and weakened field strength, is a transverse law where at the epicentre is the most magnitude of force.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/09/2017 21:36:56
You would be missing something there, like protons repulse protons
Yes, two protons do repel each other. That explains why atoms don't completely merge with each other when a chemical bond is formed. Electron orbitals merge during the formation of molecular orbitals, but the repulsion between the positively charged nuclei inside of the atoms still keeps the atoms separate from each other.
Quote
and also that does not explain how the two opposite fields merge and the mechanics of the merge and after the merge. i.e G=N-field.
Merge? Protons and electrons retain their separate identities when they are in atoms.
Quote
Science see's an object that is neutral as neutral. The N-field view shows that that the merge retains individual properties still of the electron field and proton field. So therefore concluding the N-field to also be the cause and mechanics of gravity. The mechanism we did not know.
I can see that further dialogue with you is completely pointless. You deny existing scientific knowledge because you can't verify it for yourself firsthand and yet you propose explanations which are of the exact same nature (i.e. something you cannot verify for yourself firsthand). Not only is that a double standard, but it's also one that assumes physicists are bumbling buffoons who don't know how to properly use mathematics and equipment to verify their experimental observations. It's practically insulting to the scientific community at large.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 21:48:28
I don't think electron orbitals merge, I think they are squashed against each other.You would be missing something there, like protons repulse protons
Yes, two protons do repel each other. That explains why atoms don't completely merge with each other when a chemical bond is formed. Electron orbitals merge during the formation of molecular orbitals, but the repulsion between the positively charged nuclei inside of the atoms still keeps the atoms separate from each other.
Quote
and also that does not explain how the two opposite fields merge and the mechanics of the merge and after the merge. i.e G=N-field.
Quote
Merge? Protons and electrons retain their separate identities when they are in atoms.
Yes merge, like water and milk. The two opposite fields merge into one field i.e the N-field
Quote
Science see's an object that is neutral as neutral. The N-field view shows that that the merge retains individual properties still of the electron field and proton field. So therefore concluding the N-field to also be the cause and mechanics of gravity. The mechanism we did not know.
Quote
I can see that further dialogue with you is completely pointless. You deny existing scientific knowledge because you can't verify it for yourself firsthand and yet you propose explanations which are of the exact same nature (i.e. something you cannot verify for yourself firsthand). Not only is that a double standard, but it's also one that assumes physicists are bumbling buffoons who don't know how to properly use mathematics and equipment to verify their experimental observations. It's practically insulting to the scientific community at large.
I have no idea how you have interpreted that from what I have said. I would never insult the scientific community in such of a manner. I would never say or assume bumbling bafoon's.
Try to think of it as an alternative theory to an old theory. I can't see how it '''hurts'' to discuss something's sometimes that are not mainstream. A new theory would be a very poor new theory if it only involved present information. My NEW theory involves present information such as the laws of force etc, but it doesn't destroy any old theories, it is just new.
To me what I presented in the video and my knowledge of what I have learnt about force etc the video is quite logically accurate and the physics involved would be correct according to present information?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 22:28:35
It's mainly due to the electric repulsion between the electrons in the valence orbitals of neighbouring atoms, and the repulsion between protons v protons of the nucleus .What do you think the current theories are based on?
here's a hint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR_theory
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 22:56:08
I had not seen that link before , thanks for sharing. My theory is somewhat different to that though because my theory explains gravity. An electron is not attracted to a proton , the electron field is attracted to and merges with the proton field to create the N-field , a unified field that is a good contender for the mechanism of gravity.It's mainly due to the electric repulsion between the electrons in the valence orbitals of neighbouring atoms, and the repulsion between protons v protons of the nucleus .What do you think the current theories are based on?
here's a hint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR_theory
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/09/2017 17:57:09
My theory is somewhat different to that though because my theory explains gravity. An electron is not attracted to a protonNo it isn't and yes it is.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/09/2017 18:21:12
I like how you cut half the sentence to try and make me look bad in someway. For the readers Mr Chemist here uses half of sentences by cutting them to try to confuse the readers. We can see quite easily in this example when I complete the sentence (An electron is not attracted to a proton , the electron field is attracted to and merges with the proton field to create the N-field ) that is in a few posts above and we can see here that our Mr Chemist here is doing nothing more than trying to ''troll'' me.My theory is somewhat different to that though because my theory explains gravity. An electron is not attracted to a protonNo it isn't and yes it is.
I will not waste anymore of my time talking to this individual. I would rather talk to nobody than talk to people who's only intent is to be disruptive.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/09/2017 19:55:30
My theory is somewhat different to that though because my theory explains gravity.No it isn't.
An electron is not attracted to a proton...Yes it is.
the electron field is attracted to and merges with the proton field to create the N-field ,No, it doesn't
a unified field that is a good contender for the mechanism of gravity.No, it isn't.
It is not my fault that you cram 3 errors into one sentence so I have to chop it up to point out the errors.
I would rather talk to nobody than talk to people who's only intent is to be disruptive.Posting drivel on a science website is disruptive, so you ruled out talking to yourself there.
Not many other people will read through this thread.
So, with luck, it will now die out.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 14:23:37
An electron is not attracted to a proton...Yes it is.
I really suggest you go learn some Physics before you say things aren't making yourself look stupid. Mass is attracted to the C.O.M
At C.O.M the N-field is at its most dense in accordance to the transverse square law.
The N-field expands outwards , the N-field is an isolated system field. This field has attractive and repulsive properties.
Basic physics my friend.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 14:29:28
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: The Spoon on 27/09/2017 16:20:40
This is the bit you are missing to complete quantum mechanics.. This is my last effort to explain gravity, my last science forum and quite simply I have had enough.Of course it is, until your craving for attention gets too much and you post some more mumblings.f2.jpg (35.74 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5953 times)
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 16:26:11
Your answer is doing any sort of science is it?This is the bit you are missing to complete quantum mechanics.. This is my last effort to explain gravity, my last science forum and quite simply I have had enough.Of course it is, until your craving for attention gets too much and you post some more mumblings.
No answer is often the validation of the truth.
Are you trying to say that my logic and use of simple physics is in some way flawed?
Then please show my error I am all ear's.
added- The above applies to anybody in the world or Universe, show my logic and simple physics to be flawed if you can.
Added- You can call it space-time curvature if you like, I am just giving you what you can not see.
→F
.....=N-field
←F
Post by: The Spoon on 27/09/2017 17:06:21
Your error is making assertions without any kind of evidence other than 'this is the case because it is what I think'. If people point out you are wrong you claim that they are trolls or claim that your made up ideas are an 'axiom'. I do science all day as my job. What do you do? make videos about carp fishing with a synthesised voice?Your answer is doing any sort of science is it?This is the bit you are missing to complete quantum mechanics.. This is my last effort to explain gravity, my last science forum and quite simply I have had enough.Of course it is, until your craving for attention gets too much and you post some more mumblings.
No answer is often the validation of the truth.
Are you trying to say that my logic and use of simple physics is in some way flawed?
Then please show my error I am all ear's.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 17:10:42
But saying I am wrong does not explain why I am wrong. You can go on all day long saying it is wrong but not actually explaining why it is wrong. Like I said I am all ears.Your error is making assertions without any kind of evidence other than 'this is the case because it is what I think'. If people point out you are wrong you claim that they are trolls or claim that your made up ideas are an 'axiom'. I do science all day as my job. What do you do? make videos about carp fishing with a synthesised voice?Your answer is doing any sort of science is it?This is the bit you are missing to complete quantum mechanics.. This is my last effort to explain gravity, my last science forum and quite simply I have had enough.Of course it is, until your craving for attention gets too much and you post some more mumblings.
No answer is often the validation of the truth.
Are you trying to say that my logic and use of simple physics is in some way flawed?
Then please show my error I am all ear's.
You say I am using no evidence when I am using evidence of the simple physics involved that we already know. To deny Q.F.S is like saying that opposites do not attract and likewise repulses.
Post by: Colin2B on 27/09/2017 17:12:38
No answer is often the validation of the truth.But most often it is folks not being bothered to challenge something which is obviously flawed.
I haven't been following this thread so the comment is not about it in particular.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 17:26:44
Then may I suggest you read the thread Colin and please correct me in my logic if in some way it is flawed. I am using specifically basic science here with no gimmicks.No answer is often the validation of the truth.But most often it is folks not being bothered to challenge something which is obviously flawed.
I haven't been following this thread so the comment is not about it in particular.
I can't personally ''see'' where my logic is flawed when using conventional science for the very notion. If it was so obvious then why is it so difficult to show the error?
I am also trying to think of errors there could be but I certainly can't ''see'' any. It is seemingly the end point of answers that explains gravity also.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 19:20:37
Slightly more advanced physics.An electron is not attracted to a proton...Yes it is.
I really suggest you go learn some Physics before you say things aren't making yourself look stupid. Mass is attracted to the C.O.M
At C.O.M the N-field is at its most dense in accordance to the transverse square law.
The N-field expands outwards , the N-field is an isolated system field. This field has attractive and repulsive properties.
Basic physics my friend.
The electromagnetic force is about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times bigger than the gravitational force and, in both cases they are attractive forces between the proton and electron.
So, yes they are attracted to one another.
The rest of what you posted is gibberish.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 19:28:38
I should hope so or my N-field would not work. You are not accounting that the N-field is a weaker force than the electromagnetic/electrostatic force between electrons and protons. You are forgetting that the N-field is a neutralised field with a weak force interaction. i.e gravity.Slightly more advanced physics.An electron is not attracted to a proton...Yes it is.
I really suggest you go learn some Physics before you say things aren't making yourself look stupid. Mass is attracted to the C.O.M
At C.O.M the N-field is at its most dense in accordance to the transverse square law.
The N-field expands outwards , the N-field is an isolated system field. This field has attractive and repulsive properties.
Basic physics my friend.
The electromagnetic force is about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times bigger than the gravitational force and, in both cases they are attractive forces between the proton and electron.
So, yes they are attracted to one another.
The rest of what you posted is gibberish.
added- However although it has a weak force , relative to other N-fields it has 100% solidity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 19:39:54
The rest of what you posted is gibberish.
I should hope so
You are just making stuff up.It's not science, it's not helpful; it's not even very creative.
Why do you do it?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 19:46:41
Stop trying to troll me you are not stupid and can understand the very simple explanations and simple physics involved.The rest of what you posted is gibberish.I should hope so
You are just making stuff up.It's not science, it's not helpful; it's not even very creative.
Why do you do it?
Let us try a new approach although I think you are intentionally being obtuse.
Do you agree that if we have two likewise polarities they will exert a repulsive force on each other?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
It says it does, are you in disagreement ?
added- Because in Q.F.S a variation of Newtons 3rd law. When one N-field exerts a force on a second N-field, the second N-field simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first N-field.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 20:13:16
When one N-field exerts a force on a second N-field, the second N-field simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first N-field.You made that bit up, and it's gibberish.
Show me any published work that supports the existence of these "N fields".
Or show me that they somehow explain the world as well as the conventional view.
Please note that, to do that you will have to start by showing that the normal view is actually wrong, then show how your way is better.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 20:21:57
When one N-field exerts a force on a second N-field, the second N-field simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first N-field.You made that bit up, and it's gibberish.
Show me any published work that supports the existence of these "N fields".
I made that bit up? It is almost word for word from Wiki apart from my edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
How can I show you the future? Meaning published works I have not done yet.
The notion adds to the conventional view . M1 is the C.O.M of the N-field.
Treat the Earths magnetic field as being a body, so the earth being a body within a body ok?
Easy as that...
p.s Push two of the same polarities together with magnets, feel the force of the body between the magnets.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 20:33:12
qfs1.jpg (22.84 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5636 times)Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 23:15:19
I made that bit up? It is almost word for word from Wiki apart from my edit.The edit was the gibberish bit.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 23:16:39
Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.
Everybody else thinks it proves Maxwell's equations.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 14:38:12
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
Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.
Everybody else thinks it proves Maxwell's equations.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2017 19:28:16
QFS 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.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
Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.
Everybody else thinks it proves Maxwell's equations.
In the meantime, Maxwell's equations (and the physics that goes with them) explain the force between two magnets.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 20:29:58
Q.F.S does not try to explain the force between two magnets. Q.F.S explains Newtons 3 rd law and the relative solidity between to likewise Quantum fields.QFS 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.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
Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.
Everybody else thinks it proves Maxwell's equations.
In the meantime, Maxwell's equations (and the physics that goes with them) explain the force between two magnets.
I understand my own notion .
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2017 19:21:35
I understand my own notion .Nobody else does.
Whose fault is that?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/09/2017 22:26:41
I understand my own notion .Nobody else does.
Whose fault is that?
. A child could understand this so I think you understand.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/09/2017 22:33:42
I 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).
Post by: guest39538 on 29/09/2017 22:45:08
PFFF your a tough ''crowd''.I 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 in your terms. The electromagnetic field of the earth imposes a force on the Suns electromagnetic field and vice versus because of the likewise polarities of the individual fields and in accordance with Newton's third law, an equal and opposing force, giving both fields relative Physicality.
ok?
Both electromagnetic fields also are attracted to each other by their individual opposite polarities.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 00:01:36
ok?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.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 11:57:07
My sentence is not stuffed , it is easy to understand. I am not writing a paper here or facing an audience, I present it in basics for discussion .ok?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.
It is hardly as if I am took serious is it now?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 12:29:38
I can't believe I keep biting.ok?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.
The N-field has mass.
In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions. The electromagnetic field opposes other electromagnetic fields applying an opposing and attractive force at the same time.
In magnetic suspension it is not the object that is being suspended , it is the invisible quantum field that surrounds the objects.
added - Essentially my N-field is Einsteins fabric of the spacial continuum.
added- And there is a maybe in my mind that there is an underlying quantum field that has dielectric properties that allows the N-field to permeate through. i.e an ''ether''
added- or rather than an ''ether'' the dielectric properties of space itself.
added- The more I think about it, there has to be dielectric properties of space itself having μ=0
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 13:33:24
In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions.Not really.
And there is ... an ''ether''No there isn't.
We checked.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 14:55:32
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.In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions.Not really.And there is ... an ''ether''No there isn't.
We checked.
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.
Quote
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. ..
Quantum fields are a state of matter , they are relatively solids to each other.
qfm.jpg (34.48 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5765 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 say
added- cause if the space had any polarity , fields would not be able to permeate.
Post by: The Spoon on 02/10/2017 18:38:08
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.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.In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions.Not really.And there is ... an ''ether''No there isn't.
We checked.
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.
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 say
added- cause if the space had any polarity , fields would not be able to permeate.
The rest of your post is gibberish.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 22:37:01
First of all μ0 means zero permeability. Secondly I know what dielectric means, well I thought I did until I just checked up on it. I swear wiki keeps changing, never mind.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.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.In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions.Not really.And there is ... an ''ether''No there isn't.
We checked.
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.
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 say
added- cause if the space had any polarity , fields would not be able to permeate.
The rest of your post is gibberish.
I want to explain a ''field'' that allows a negative and positive polarity to permeate through, could I say a conductive field?
This ''field'' being the ''ether'' that allows the electromagnetic fields to permeate through it isotropic. Electromagnetic fields having the duality of being repulsive and attractive at the same time.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/10/2017 10:56:34
Quote from: Kr
The cube will weigh less on the Moon than on Earth, but it will not have less mass.
It weighs less because there is less magnitude of G than on Earth? i.e less applied force
Post by: guest39538 on 05/10/2017 13:28:43
Post by: guest39538 on 05/10/2017 13:39:53
merge3.jpg (66.67 kB . 898x572 - viewed 8445 times)Quantum field solidity and Quantum field merge.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2017 07:27:03
First 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 before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
Please make up another term for your made up idea.
Post by: The Spoon on 07/10/2017 10:46:58
Maybe call it The Reflex who according to the lyrics of the hit by Duran Duran, is a lonely child waiting by the park.First 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 before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
Please make up another term for your made up idea.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/10/2017 11:14:23
A vacuum on Earth in experiment or the almost vacuum of space?First 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 before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
Please make up another term for your made up idea.
Post by: The Spoon on 07/10/2017 11:18:20
If you had read the linked article you wouldn't be asking this question.A vacuum on Earth in experiment or the almost vacuum of space?First 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 before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
Please make up another term for your made up idea.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/10/2017 12:22:51
Yes I would because the link does not really answer my question. (Not what I can 'see'').If you had read the linked article you wouldn't be asking this question.A vacuum on Earth in experiment or the almost vacuum of space?First 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 before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability
Please make up another term for your made up idea.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/10/2017 12:24:19
Post by: guest39538 on 07/10/2017 12:30:49
Post by: guest39538 on 07/10/2017 21:03:18
I think I have just worked out my own answer.
Quantum field solidity and Quantum field merge.
r=(F1+F2)+(F1+F2)=r0
Post by: guest39538 on 19/10/2017 02:15:38
I can explain it far better and far more accurate though if I really wanted too. Back to the drawing board for me, I bet you didn't consider Q.F.S , that is new to you I am sure.
P.s all these forums that say I am full of chit for years then a video of the same chit . pfffff
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/10/2017 20:04:48
Are you saying that μ0 is not 0?It's not that I am saying it.
It's just that μ0 is, in fact, about 1.6 µH/m
Nothing you can type here will stop that being true.
I realise you have't the understanding to recognise this fact but if it was zero, the speed of light would be infinite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
You are plainly wrong.
Why do you keep banging on about it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/10/2017 20:08:08
So you were taking the mick after all. I just came across this video. You could of told me my notions you already know.
I can explain it far better and far more accurate though if I really wanted too. Back to the drawing board for me, I bet you didn't consider Q.F.S , that is new to you I am sure.
P.s all these forums that say I am full of chit for years then a video of the same chit . pfffff
Imagine I said
" The universe is made of pancakes"
And various people pointed out that it was a silly idea.
Then I posted a video about pancake making.
Would it show that I was right?
OK, swap pancakes for QFT, and that's pretty much what you did.
Why not stop?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/10/2017 23:52:13
Why not stop?
Because I provide the ingredients of the pancake. If we do not know the ingredients of a pancake , then we have no information about how a pancake is made.
Post by: guest39538 on 19/10/2017 23:53:47
By that you are saying there is an ether. What is the permeability of an electromagnetic field?Are you saying that μ0 is not 0?It's not that I am saying it.
It's just that μ0 is, in fact, about 1.6 µH/m
Nothing you can type here will stop that being true.
I realise you have't the understanding to recognise this fact but if it was zero, the speed of light would be infinite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
You are plainly wrong.
Why do you keep banging on about it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/10/2017 19:00:28
By that you are saying there is an ether.No I am not.
It's easier if you don't make up stuff that other people "said" but actually read what they did say.
Because I provide the ingredients of the pancake. If we do not know the ingredients of a pancake , then we have no information about how a pancake is made.And when you do so, you still don't move us to a better understanding of physics.
Post by: guest39538 on 20/10/2017 20:04:42
And when you do so, you still don't move us to a better understanding of physics.But every time I post some physics, I learn more and have a better understanding of ''your'' physics. The replies are often my teachers.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/10/2017 22:45:31
For a start, what you are posting isn't physics; at best it seems to be bad postmodern poetryAnd when you do so, you still don't move us to a better understanding of physics.But every time I post some physics, I learn more and have a better understanding of ''your'' physics. The replies are often my teachers.
You will learn faster if you ask questions than if you post balderdash- so why do you insist on the slow route?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/10/2017 00:06:29
What you really mean to say is what I post is not the Physics you were taught by education that is mainstream . So why don't you try to understand and learn some new Physics that you have not learnt yet?For a start, what you are posting isn't physics; at best it seems to be bad postmodern poetryAnd when you do so, you still don't move us to a better understanding of physics.But every time I post some physics, I learn more and have a better understanding of ''your'' physics. The replies are often my teachers.
You will learn faster if you ask questions than if you post balderdash- so why do you insist on the slow route?
I am the teacher in my own new theory threads but I am also still learning because there is to much to know.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 16:03:54
I was going to save this for the continuation of my paper but now is the time I feel the need for explanation.
All in the universe is a complex system that exists by random chance and the coincidence of two individual opposite energies manifesting at the exact 0 point geometrical position simultaneously.
The unified polarities of fields having the ability to contract and expand the fields that are interwoven by the very fact that all points of one field is equally attracted to all points of an opposite field to create the quantum solidity of fields.
If one field is stretched then the opposite field also stretches and if one field field contracts the opposite field contracts as they are ''glue'' like together,
The very fabric of the space being the extended infinite n-fields of the N-fields.
Post by: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 16:15:39
Explaining.
I was going to save this for the continuation of my paper but now is the time I feel the need for explanation.
All in the universe is a complex system that exists by random chance and the coincidence of two individual opposite energies manifesting at the exact 0 point geometrical position simultaneously.
The unified polarities of fields having the ability to contract and expand the fields that are interwoven by the very fact that all points of one field is equally attracted to all points of an opposite field to create the quantum solidity of fields.
If one field is stretched then the opposite field also stretches and if one field field contracts the opposite field contracts as they are ''glue'' like together,
The very fabric of the space being the extended infinite n-fields of the N-fields.
If it was infinite then why would there be a need to extend it?
For example, if you had a contract to do something for an infinite amount of time, you wouldn't extend that contract to keep it for longer would you? Infinite literally means there is no end, to extend it you would have to find the end but without there being an end it is quintessentially impossible.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 16:43:08
If it was infinite then why would there be a need to extend it?That is where my Eviscosity plays a part and Q.F.D quantum field density. Imagine a boat at rest at a dock. The tide comes in the boat expands from the ocean floor.
In this instant the density of the water remains constant. But when we talk about fields, they have dynamic density.
I am considering explaining this as Q.F.B (quantum field buoyancy). For example the earth is less buoyant than mars.
Post by: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 16:47:45
If it was infinite then why would there be a need to extend it?That is where my Eviscosity plays a part and Q.F.D quantum field density. Imagine a boat at rest at a dock. The tide comes in the boat expands from the ocean floor.
In this instant the density of the water remains constant. But when we talk about fields, they have dynamic density.
I am considering explaining this as Q.F.B (quantum field buoyancy). For example the earth is less buoyant than mars.
Not really, QFB would be wrong, objects are not buoyant on a quantum level,
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 16:59:11
You would be wrong on that assumption. Likewise polarities give quantum buoyancy. Have you never seen magnetic suspension? The object in suspension is floating on the quantum solidity of the field affects.If it was infinite then why would there be a need to extend it?That is where my Eviscosity plays a part and Q.F.D quantum field density. Imagine a boat at rest at a dock. The tide comes in the boat expands from the ocean floor.
In this instant the density of the water remains constant. But when we talk about fields, they have dynamic density.
I am considering explaining this as Q.F.B (quantum field buoyancy). For example the earth is less buoyant than mars.
Not really, QFB would be wrong, objects are not buoyant on a quantum level,
The ''free'' space between the suspended object and field source having Q.F.S. If we were to increase the magnitude of the source force , the object will expand away from the source. Density of the field increasing giving a further radius where the object is at equilibrium buoyancy rest.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 14:48:16
What you really mean to say is what I post is not the Physics you were taught by education that is mainstreamNo
What I mean is that what you post is not the physics that works.
So, what you post doesn't work.
Re. "why don't you try to understand and learn some new Physics that you have not learnt yet? "
I would, and from time to time, I do.
But what you post is not " some new Physics that you have not learnt yet? "
What you post is useless dross that makes no sense.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 14:54:52
That is strange because the physics i have posted on the N-field and n-field does work. It is ''your'' physics.What you really mean to say is what I post is not the Physics you were taught by education that is mainstreamNo
What I mean is that what you post is not the physics that works.
So, what you post doesn't work.
Re. "why don't you try to understand and learn some new Physics that you have not learnt yet? "
I would, and from time to time, I do.
But what you post is not " some new Physics that you have not learnt yet? "
What you post is useless dross that makes no sense.
Ok Mr Chemist I am going to pretend you are not a bored troll and discuss this with you properly if you are up for the challenge?
Firstly in anticipation of your reply I would like to discuss Coulombs laws.
Quote
Coulomb's law states that: The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Do you accept this to be factual science and true?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 15:09:49
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Do you accept this to be factual science and true?
Yes.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 15:14:38
We are both in agreement , I also accept this to be factual science.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Do you accept this to be factual science and true?
Yes.
Now a question for you , can this law also be applied to magnetic field polarity ?
Can we say:
The magnitude of the electromagnetic force of attraction between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of polarities and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 15:22:16
Can we say:
The magnitude of the electromagnetic force of attraction between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of polarities and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them?
No, we can't, because polarity doesn't have a magnitude.
That's why you need to start by learning some science.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 15:28:05
You are now my teacher , hopefully I and you are going to develop my theory and make it truthful in every way by me learning what I need to learn to make my theory.Can we say:
The magnitude of the electromagnetic force of attraction between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of polarities and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them?
No, we can't, because polarity doesn't have a magnitude.
That's why you need to start by learning some science.
Can you start by please explaining why polarity does not have a magnitude?
I thought/think that if we start with a single atom it has a polarity of 1e and 1p
If we then had two atoms we have a polarity of 2e and 2p
so 1 atom = 1 neg and 1 pos
two atoms = 2 neg and 2 pos
How is two of something not a greater magnitude?
added- The ''magnitude'' of polarity is directly proportional to the mass?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 15:56:41
Do you man charge?
If so, why not say so?
The polarity of a charge is a binary variable; positive or negative. It has no magnitude.
It's like left handed and right handed. It barely makes sense to ask how left handed someone is; they are or they are not.
If you started out by learning some science you would understand things like this.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 16:01:33
You are using the word "polarity" for something which is similar to "charge".No I mean polarity.
Do you man charge?
If so, why not say so?
The polarity of a charge is a binary variable; positive or negative. It has no magnitude.
It's like left handed and right handed. It barely makes sense to ask how left handed someone is; they are or they are not.
If you started out by learning some science you would understand things like this.
But if it helps lets stick to charge a minute and the polarity of charge.
q- and q+
So you are saying if had a ''group'' of q- and q+ , that the magnitude of polarity does not change?
q+q+q+q+
q-q-q-q-
Meaning it does not matter how big the object is the polarity will always be the same ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 16:07:29
Also because the electron density is spherically arranged round the proton it has no polarisation.
You say " that the magnitude of polarity does not change? " when I have already explained that, like handedness, polarity does not have a magnitude.
What's the point of this if you don't accept reality?
It's like asking if 123 is a more odd number than 12209?
Or is 2 more even than 64?
The odd- or even-ness doesn't have magnitude.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 16:10:10
What's the point of this if you don't accept reality?
I have not said I do not accept your answer, I am just questioning your answer deeper.
Can we say that the + and - polarity is directly proportional to the mass?
charge is not attracted or repulsed by charge, the polarities are what do the attracted and repulsing?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 16:13:54
Can we say that the + and - polarity is directly proportional to the mass?No, we can't.
For two reasons.
The first is that polarity isn't a "quantity"
Things are not going to progress until you get that into your head.
The other point is that the charge isn't proportional to mass either. That's been explained at length before.
The simplest way to demonstrate it is that a positron has the same charge as a proton, but is about 2000 limes less massive.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 16:19:16
The first is that polarity isn't a "quantity"That would be untrue, there is two polarities, two is a quantity.
So let me get this right ,
You are saying that the polarity of m1 is directly proportional to m2, a quantity of 2 polarities in each?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 16:27:19
There are an infinite number of integers.
Each one is either odd or even.
That property- oddness or evenness- is called parity.
All integers have a parity- it's either odd or even.
So, for example, the parity of 10 is "even"
But "even" is not a number, it's a description.
You can't multiply it by something.
And all numbers have just one parity.
A collection of numbers doesn't have a defined parity.
(is 3,4,5 even or odd?- it's impossible to say).
Polarity is like parity. It is not a number, it's a description.
OK.
Lets move on to charge- all objects have a charge. That charge may be zero, it may be big or small .
Whether the charge is big or small, it also has a polarity- either positive or negative.
So it isn't the object that has a polarity, it is the charge on that object which (unless it is zero) has a polarity.
No object can have more than 1 charge (overall) so no object can have more than 1 polarity.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 16:35:48
OK, lets start out by clarifying what sort of variable polarity isThank you , your post is certainly something new to me, parity is something I am not familiar with and will have to look up to gain more knowledge on it.
However you said that polarity does not have a magnitude but then say it is a variable which seems contradictory and is confusing to me. Only quantities can be variables but admittedly I do not understand parity in which you are probably explaining a difference , however it is too soon for the information to have ''sunk'' in yet.
Quote
There are an infinite number of integers.
What do you mean by integers?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 17:26:31
It's a variable that has one (and only one) of two (and there are only two) values.
The polarity of a charge is either positive or negative.
Those are properties, not numbers.
So you can't add them or do other arithmetic with them.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/11/2017 21:26:02
No, we can't, because polarity doesn't have a magnitude.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Some molecules are more polar than others and can have those polarities measured as a dipole moment.
Not that it makes Thebox's hypothesis correct, though.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 21:49:16
I know.No, we can't, because polarity doesn't have a magnitude.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Some molecules are more polar than others and can have those polarities measured as a dipole moment.
Not that it makes Thebox's hypothesis correct, though.
But polarity is not the same as a dipole moment.
It's the difference between polarity of a material- like water or the polarity of a thing, like an electron.
As it stands, Thebox is confused enough without adding that.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/11/2017 10:48:17
Ok, to clarify this, you are saying no matter how big a mass is or how small a mass is , the polarities in both masses are equal and proportional and equal and proportional attracted and repulsed by polarity?I know.No, we can't, because polarity doesn't have a magnitude.
I wouldn't be too sure about that. Some molecules are more polar than others and can have those polarities measured as a dipole moment.
Not that it makes Thebox's hypothesis correct, though.
But polarity is not the same as a dipole moment.
It's the difference between polarity of a material- like water or the polarity of a thing, like an electron.
As it stands, Thebox is confused enough without adding that.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/11/2017 13:15:17
Ok, to clarify this, you are saying no matter how big a mass is or how small a mass is , the polarities in both masses are equal and proportional and equal and proportional attracted and repulsed by polarity?You think that's a clarification?
Anyway. No.
Nobody said anything like that. You made it up.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/11/2017 15:16:38
No, thats more or less what you are telling me.Ok, to clarify this, you are saying no matter how big a mass is or how small a mass is , the polarities in both masses are equal and proportional and equal and proportional attracted and repulsed by polarity?You think that's a clarification?
Anyway. No.
Nobody said anything like that. You made it up.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/11/2017 16:48:07
No, thats more or less what you are telling me.Why are you pretending that you know what I'm saying, better than I do?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/11/2017 16:58:47
Interpretation is not pretending .No, thats more or less what you are telling me.Why are you pretending that you know what I'm saying, better than I do?
Post by: Kryptid on 05/11/2017 17:32:13
Interpretation is not pretending .
Bored Chemist isn't the one proposing that polarity has anything to do with how one mass attracts another.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/11/2017 17:52:29
Well to deny it isn't is like denying any of the affects of polarity. He said that no matter how big a mass is or how small a mass is , the polarities in both masses are equal and proportional , therefore indirectly saying equal and proportional attracted and repulsed by polarityInterpretation is not pretending .
Bored Chemist isn't the one proposing that polarity has anything to do with how one mass attracts another.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/11/2017 17:54:26
9.82m/s2?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/11/2017 19:10:33
He said that no matter how big a mass is or how small a mass is , the polarities in both masses are equal and proportionalLiar.
I made it clear that "proportional" isn't a word you can apply to polarity.
You just ignored it
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/11/2017 19:11:49
What is the acceleration of opposite charges towards each other?It depends on their separation, the size of the charges and the masses of the charged objects.
9.82m/s2?
It almost certainly won't be 9.81 m/s/s
Post by: guest39538 on 05/11/2017 19:26:11
So you had a guess and do not really know the answer?What is the acceleration of opposite charges towards each other?It depends on their separation, the size of the charges and the masses of the charged objects.
9.82m/s2?
It almost certainly won't be 9.81 m/s/s
Is there an answer?
Has it ever been measured?
Post by: alancalverd on 05/11/2017 19:38:48
Force between two charged bodies F = q1q2/r2
acceleration of a body of mass m = F/m
so one moves towards the centre of mass at a1= q1q2/r2m1 and the other at a2 = q1q2/r2m2
It is left as an exercise for the reader to calculate the mutual rate of approach as a function of separation r.
Has it been done? You bet. Many times, in many different forms of experiment. One of the simplest is Millikan's oil drop experiment which allows us to determine the charge of an electron as we know the acceleration of an uncharged oil drop would be g.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/11/2017 20:23:24
Your question made as little sense as askingSo you had a guess and do not really know the answer?What is the acceleration of opposite charges towards each other?It depends on their separation, the size of the charges and the masses of the charged objects.
9.82m/s2?
It almost certainly won't be 9.81 m/s/s
Is there an answer?
Has it ever been measured?
"how fast does an animal run?"
The answer is "it depends".
Sorry that you didn't like it, but it's really not down to me.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 01:43:28
Depends on what?Your question made as little sense as askingSo you had a guess and do not really know the answer?What is the acceleration of opposite charges towards each other?It depends on their separation, the size of the charges and the masses of the charged objects.
9.82m/s2?
It almost certainly won't be 9.81 m/s/s
Is there an answer?
Has it ever been measured?
"how fast does an animal run?"
The answer is "it depends".
Sorry that you didn't like it, but it's really not down to me.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 04:44:21
Depends on what?
He already said what it depends on: the mass, charge and distance between the two objects. Alancalverd even listed the relevant equations. Since the charge, mass and distance between different objects is variable, the acceleration will be variable as well.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 14:19:26
Charge and mass has no attractive properties, only the polarity has attractive or repulsive properties. Polarity is a constant, gravity is a constant, more than a coincidence I would say.Depends on what?
He already said what it depends on: the mass, charge and distance between the two objects. Alancalverd even listed the relevant equations. Since the charge, mass and distance between different objects is variable, the acceleration will be variable as well.
Mass if it were a real thing could not be a variable because G is constant and the mass of an object is attracted to the mass of another object. But mass can be a variate though, so quite clearly a variate can not give a G constant, so mass has absolutely nothing to do with a gravity constant.
The only constant of matter is polarities. Therefore the conclusion I reach is that polarity must be the cause of gravity, 1 constant equal and proportional to another constant.
There is only polarity that is equal so there is only polarity that can give a constant G result.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 19:47:23
Charge and mass has no attractive properties, only the polarity has attractive or repulsive properties.
Unsupported statement.
Quote
Polarity is a constant, gravity is a constant, more than a coincidence I would say.
Gravity changes depending on the object in question. and how far away you are from the object. Jupiter has much more gravity than the Earth and the Earth's gravitational field is much weaker 1,000 miles away than it is when you are standing on its surface.
Quote
Mass if it were a real thing could not be a variable because G is constant and the mass of an object is attracted to the mass of another object. But mass can be a variate though, so quite clearly a variate can not give a G constant, so mass has absolutely nothing to do with a gravity constant.
Gravity does vary. What, do you think all of the planets have the same gravitational field strength?
Quote
The only constant of matter is polarities.
Wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant#Table_of_physical_constants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant#Table_of_physical_constants)
Quote
Therefore the conclusion I reach is that polarity must be the cause of gravity, 1 constant equal and proportional to another constant.
There is only polarity that is equal so there is only polarity that can give a constant G result.
Given that your premises are flawed, your conclusion cannot be trusted.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 19:52:22
Gravity does vary. What, do you think all of the planets have the same gravitational field strength?9.81 m/s2 pff constant
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 19:53:07
Given that your premises are flawed, your conclusion cannot be trusted.You have not read my unwritten paper on the matter.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 19:53:43
Unsupported statement.no its not.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 19:54:26
Gravity does vary. What, do you think all of the planets have the same gravitational field strength?9.81 m/s2 pff constant
That's the acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface. That doesn't apply on other planets or at high altitudes on Earth.
Quote
You have not read my unwritten paper on the matter.
Thanks for stating the obvious...
Quote
no its not.
I haven't seen you support it in this thread yet.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 20:15:30
Let me show something to you, I go to sleep and wake up ''knowing'' things. I could really say my ideas I must dream up but then when I consider the ideas , sometimes they are a possibility.Gravity does vary. What, do you think all of the planets have the same gravitational field strength?9.81 m/s2 pff constant
That's the acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface. That doesn't apply on other planets or at high altitudes on Earth.QuoteYou have not read my unwritten paper on the matter.
Thanks for stating the obvious...Quoteno its not.
I haven't seen you support it in this thread yet.
I spent years on time and light to come up with my conclusions and the reality of those subjects. The N-field is not something new to me but different to the way I have been thinking about it. So it is quite new and might take a few years to get a stage where I can explain it with ease.
So please stop expecting me to have all the answers immediately as I have to sleep to ''dream'' up an answer.
What I will tell you is this.
Abstract: This paper is intended to give a definite shape or structure to the beginning of time and the start of the Universe. It also intends to give energy an exact definition and by use of Coulomb's laws ,invoke a logical masterpiece that fits reality exact.
Micro-bang wave theory
According to Coulomb's Law and evidently facts , likewise polarities repulse and opposite polarities attract. However ladies and gentlemen there is no mention or law's on the individualisation of each opposite polarity. Meaning by this , what actions occur when considering a single polarity of one of the opposite signs?
Now according to the laws of physics and well established scientific facts, we already know ladies and gentlemen, that likewise polarities repulse!
This leaves a question in my mind about the physics of a single polarities existence and how can a single polarity retain itself when it is likewise to itself.
The physics suggests from the very first creation of a single polarity in a 0 point space as a 0 point energy would just diminish at the speed of light as a micro bang that ''exploded'' creating a wave of itself that permeated for an infinite distance unless interacting with an obstacle in its path.
to be continued.......edited etc, was just an example of what I really know.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 20:19:23
So please stop expecting me to have all the answers immediately as I have to sleep to ''dream'' up an answer.
Then please stop expecting us to accept your hypotheses as true until you can give us the needed answers.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 20:23:08
I do not expect anything, I am just sharing my ideas with the scientists, what they do with my ideas is up to them as I am not a scientist.So please stop expecting me to have all the answers immediately as I have to sleep to ''dream'' up an answer.
Then please stop expecting us to accept your hypotheses as true until you can give us the needed answers.
I think talking to Bogie as helped me clear up my ideas in my own head and your questions and others questions help me to look deeper for answers.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 20:26:13
I do not expect anything, I am just sharing my ideas with the scientists, what they do with my ideas is up to them as I am not a scientist.
I think talking to Bogie as helped me clear up my ideas in my own head and your questions and others questions help me to look deeper for answers.
Then don't act like your N-field hypothesis has been proven to be true.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 20:29:59
Where do I say I have proven it to be true?I do not expect anything, I am just sharing my ideas with the scientists, what they do with my ideas is up to them as I am not a scientist.
I think talking to Bogie as helped me clear up my ideas in my own head and your questions and others questions help me to look deeper for answers.
Then don't act like your N-field hypothesis has been proven to be true.
I have not said it is proven to be true however the facts make it very possibly true.
p.s I have proven it true in my own mind because i cant find it to be untrue.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/11/2017 20:34:12
Charge and mass has no attractive properties,Demonstrably false.
On the lab scale this was shown by Cavendish.
On a bigger scale it's what keeps the moon in orbit etc.
Polarity is a constantNo it isn't.
more than a coincidence I would say.Sensible people would't say it
And the rest of the post just isn't worthy of comment.
It's still time you learned some science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/11/2017 20:34:56
I have not said it is proven to be true however the factsYou didn't cite any facts, just nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/11/2017 20:37:33
p.s I have proven it true in my own mind because i cant find it to be untrue.That's because you have no idea what you are on about.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 20:42:50
Where do I say I have proven it to be true?
I have not said it is proven to be true however the facts make it very possibly true.
Here:
Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.
This notion of mine is correct
The difference is the n-field is not made up. It is a physical thing that has and is observed every day .
I have not made anything up in my theory I only used hard factual science that exists and is easily provable.
Quote
p.s I have proven it true in my own mind because i cant find it to be untrue.
You realize that "true until proven untrue" is the opposite of how rational thinking works, right? Should we assume that fairies, Bigfoot, invisible unicorns and everything we have failed to falsify automatically exist?
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 21:46:07
If only that were true, I know what I am on about, not only do I know it , I can ''see'' it and if I can remember how to upscale an object in size in Blender, I could CGI it using particle mode.p.s I have proven it true in my own mind because i cant find it to be untrue.That's because you have no idea what you are on about.
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 21:48:41
You realize that "true until proven untrue" is the opposite of how rational thinking works, right? Should we assume that fairies, Bigfoot, invisible unicorns and everything we have failed to falsify automatically exist?Well to me , the science over the years everyone has learnt me ''speaks'' to me and says it is possible. If something is possible then it is more than just the imagination. But yes I understand I need to find something testable, maybe Hutchingson would give me a hand.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 22:29:33
If something is possible then it is more than just the imagination.
Not necessarily. It is possible that there is a million dollars hidden under my house somewhere. Until I have some evidence that it is really there, then I don't know that it is more than my imagination, now do I?
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 23:54:49
True but when the evidence is present information of science, the suggestive becomes more factual.If something is possible then it is more than just the imagination.
Not necessarily. It is possible that there is a million dollars hidden under my house somewhere. Until I have some evidence that it is really there, then I don't know that it is more than my imagination, now do I?
No one is denying Coulomb's law in being true , which alone is the hard evidence needed for my theory. Notice I did not say Hypothesis?
A question for you, if we have a single polarity field, do you agree it is likewise to itself?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 23:59:24
True but when the evidence is present information of science, the suggestive becomes more factual.
The existing explanation for the solidity of objects uses "present information of science". At the very least, you'd have to perform an experiment that differentiates between the two explanations. Let me know when you've done that.
Quote
No one is denying Coulomb's law in being true , which alone is the hard evidence needed for my theory. Notice I did not say Hypothesis?
I'm the one who said it was a hypothesis because that's what it is. You've done no experiments to even advance it to the point of being a theory.
Quote
A question for you, if we had a single polarity field, do you agree it is likewise to itself?
The question makes no sense to me. I don't know what "likewise to itself" is supposed to mean.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 00:16:50
The question makes no sense to me. I don't know what "likewise to itself" is supposed to mean.Huh? I think you are being a little slow there,
Let me explain this way ,
We have a cube of energy 10mile³ that is a single polarity we will use q for polarity and - to represent the sign.
q1=10mile³
Now if you can imagine a matrix of 0 point spaces, i.e volume, all 0 points of the matrix are likewise to each other in polarity ?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 00:24:30
Huh? I think you are being a little slow there
Where I come from, I've never heard anyone say "likewise to itself". It sounds like bad grammar to me. What are you trying to say with that phrase?
Quote
Let me explain this way ,
We have a cube of energy 10mile³ that is a single polarity we will use q for polarity and - to represent the sign.
There is no such thing as a "cube of energy". Energy is not a physically tangible object, it is a property of objects. You might as well say you have a cube of spin or a cube of speed.
Quote
q1=10mile³
Since when is polarity the same as a volume?
Quote
Now if you can imagine a matrix of 0 point spaces, i.e volume, all 0 points of the matrix are likewise to each other in polarity ?
There you go again with that "likewise" thing. Are you trying to say that they all have the same charge or what?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 00:34:30
Where I come from, I've never heard anyone say "likewise to itself". It sounds like bad grammar to me. What are you trying to say with that phrase?That all cm³ of a m³ volume of a single pole field is the same polarity and likewise.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 00:35:59
Since when is polarity the same as a volume?Fields
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 00:36:49
There is no such thing as a "cube of energy". Energy is not a physically tangible object, it is a property of objects. You might as well say you have a cube of spin or a cube of speed.imagine fog filling the volume if you like , I was trying to give you something to picture.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 00:44:21
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 00:48:16
Alright, if I understand you correctly, you're just talking about a negatively or positively-charged field filling a given volume of space?Yes that's it in basic form, do you agree that any point of the field is the same and likewise to any other point of the field?
i.e likewise to itself
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 05:01:22
Yes that's it in basic form, do you agree that any point of the field is the same and likewise to any other point of the field?
i.e likewise to itself
Depends on what you mean by "the same". The strength of a vector field is certainly going to vary depending on where you are in the field. A gravitational field is stronger closer to a planet than far from it and a magnetic field is stronger closer to its poles than far from them.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2017 17:13:57
Well to me , the science over the years everyone has learnt me ''speaks'' to me and says it is possible
You should ask it to repeat itself; you clearly didn't hear it right.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 17:14:58
It has already been said that polarity has no magnitude, the question is about the polarity not the charge or magnitude of the field.Yes that's it in basic form, do you agree that any point of the field is the same and likewise to any other point of the field?
i.e likewise to itself
Depends on what you mean by "the same". The strength of a vector field is certainly going to vary depending on where you are in the field. A gravitational field is stronger closer to a planet than far from it and a magnetic field is stronger closer to its poles than far from them.
The polarity of one point is the same and likewise to all other points of the field yes?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2017 17:16:20
Let me explain this way ,That's not an explanation. It's word salad.
We have a cube of energy 10mile³ that is a single polarity we will use q for polarity and - to represent the sign.
q1=10mile³
Now if you can imagine a matrix of 0 point spaces, i.e volume, all 0 points of the matrix are likewise to each other in polarity ?
"The polarity of one point is the same and likewise to all other points of the field yes?"
No.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 17:16:32
Why do you like being such a troll?Well to me , the science over the years everyone has learnt me ''speaks'' to me and says it is possible
You should ask it to repeat itself; you clearly didn't hear it right.
Stop posting unrelated rubbish dude.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 17:18:08
Huh are you mad? So you are saying if we have a single polarity field , there is different polarity points within the field?Let me explain this way ,That's not an explanation. It's word salad.
We have a cube of energy 10mile³ that is a single polarity we will use q for polarity and - to represent the sign.
q1=10mile³
Now if you can imagine a matrix of 0 point spaces, i.e volume, all 0 points of the matrix are likewise to each other in polarity ?
"The polarity of one point is the same and likewise to all other points of the field yes?"
No.
I think not, the field is likewise in polarity all over to itself.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 17:25:01
''Eve'' cannot exist without ''Adam''
Because a likewise polarity entropy by the laws of physics has to expand.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2017 17:29:14
Your habit of making stuff up isn't helping anything.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 17:30:59
Why don't you use the established meanings of technical terms like "polarity".Because I have to dumb it down or you keep saying you don't understand. It isn't making stuff up, surely the part on adam and eve is not too smart for you to understand?
Your habit of making stuff up isn't helping anything.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 17:38:40
The preconditions of the N-field and n-field are that two opposite polarities which we will name ''pos and neg'' , ''pos'' cannot exist without ''neg''.
''neg'' cannot exist without ''pos''
Because a likewise polarity entropy by the laws of physics has to expand.
P.s for those who don't get what a N-field or n-field is, they are the unification of all fields merged into quantum entangled fields and the equality of polarities of all the fields.
Meaning in simple terms the common ground for all fields is polarities.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 17:57:00
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2017 18:06:35
Do you think that anyone else on Earth uses that word for the same thing you use it for?
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 18:11:30
What do you think the word "polarity" means?I know what a polarity is , i.e a north and south magnetic field polarity or charge polarity, etc, I think the physics may be something to do with spin ?
Do you think that anyone else on Earth uses that word for the same thing you use it for?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2017 18:44:38
Now look at this again.
I think not, the field is likewise in polarity all over to itself.
Why do you think it means something?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 20:01:01
It has already been said that polarity has no magnitude, the question is about the polarity not the charge or magnitude of the field.
The polarity of a field is whether it is positive or negative.
Quote
The polarity of one point is the same and likewise to all other points of the field yes?
For an electric field around a negatively-charged particle, yes, the field will have a negative polarity.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 20:09:19
Why do you keep changing the question? the question is about a single polarity field not a field surrounding a negative charged particle .It has already been said that polarity has no magnitude, the question is about the polarity not the charge or magnitude of the field.
The polarity of a field is whether it is positive or negative.QuoteThe polarity of one point is the same and likewise to all other points of the field yes?
For an electric field around a negatively-charged particle, yes, the field will have a negative polarity.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 20:12:14
Why do you keep changing the question? the question is about a single polarity field not a field surrounding a negative charged particle .
Then I don't know what you're talking about. If you have an electric field then you must also have an electrically-charged particle to produce that field.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 20:40:35
So you can't imagine a void and a single polarity dark energy trying to manifest?Why do you keep changing the question? the question is about a single polarity field not a field surrounding a negative charged particle .
Then I don't know what you're talking about. If you have an electric field then you must also have an electrically-charged particle to produce that field.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 20:47:48
So you can't imagine a void and a single polarity dark energy trying to manifest?
We don't even know what dark energy is, much less whether it has polarity or not.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2017 20:55:43
trying to manifestYou seem to be writing bad Gothic literature, rather than science.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 21:18:26
I just give up, it is like talking to brick walls who do not have the ability to think.trying to manifestYou seem to be writing bad Gothic literature, rather than science.
OK let us switch to gases and an isolated gas cloud becomes polarised to a negative polarity. The cloud expands because every dot in the gas cloud is a likewise polarity.
OK?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 21:25:21
I just give up, it is like talking to brick walls who do not have the ability to think.
OK let us switch to gases and an isolated gas cloud becomes polarised to a negative polarity. The cloud expands because every dot in the gas cloud is a likewise polarity.
OK?
A gas cloud where every atom of the cloud has a net negative charge will expand, yes. Such would not be the case for a field, though. Fields don't work like that.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 21:50:23
Right ok, I think the penny dropped. You say fields don't work like that, I disagree, if you can now take away the visible image of the gas cloud and replace it with the image of a field, there is no difference in the physics involved, the polarised field will expand in accordance with the physics involved.I just give up, it is like talking to brick walls who do not have the ability to think.
OK let us switch to gases and an isolated gas cloud becomes polarised to a negative polarity. The cloud expands because every dot in the gas cloud is a likewise polarity.
OK?
A gas cloud where every atom of the cloud has a net negative charge will expand, yes. Such would not be the case for a field, though. Fields don't work like that.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 22:03:36
Just like this, , micro bangs ''exploding'' into wave-energy
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 22:26:08
Right ok, I think the penny dropped. You say fields don't work like that, I disagree
Then you're wrong. An electric field itself does not have any electric charge. It is simply the entity which allows electric charges to interact with each other. Electric fields are composed of virtual photons, which have no electric charge and therefore cannot attract or repel one-another.
Quote
if you can now take away the visible image of the gas cloud and replace it with the image of a field, there is no difference in the physics involved, the polarised field will expand in accordance with the physics involved.
Electric fields themselves are not charged, so no such thing will happen.
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 22:49:02
The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral. i.e no measured charge. However the independent properties of polarities remain but measure a null result. A+B=NRight ok, I think the penny dropped. You say fields don't work like that, I disagree
Then you're wrong. An electric field itself does not have any electric charge. It is simply the entity which allows electric charges to interact with each other. Electric fields are composed of virtual photons, which have no electric charge and therefore cannot attract or repel one-another.Quoteif you can now take away the visible image of the gas cloud and replace it with the image of a field, there is no difference in the physics involved, the polarised field will expand in accordance with the physics involved.
Electric fields themselves are not charged, so no such thing will happen.
N=A+B
Measuring both at the same time can only give a null result.
added
-e+e=0=N
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 23:25:48
The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral. i.e no measured charge. However the independent properties of polarities remain but measure a null result. A+B=N
N=A+B
Measuring both at the same time can only give a null result.
added
-e+e=0=N
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm telling you that even a field around an object that does have a net charge (such as an electron) does not repel itself and expand. Electric fields do not have charge regardless of whether the object that produces them is positive, negative or neutral. They transmit the effects of the charged particles that produce them but are not charged themselves. They are the messengers but they are not the ones writing the message.
Post by: guest39538 on 08/11/2017 14:37:11
Object? You are responding in a manner that is still considering existing theories such as the Rutherford model of the atom.The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral. i.e no measured charge. However the independent properties of polarities remain but measure a null result. A+B=N
N=A+B
Measuring both at the same time can only give a null result.
added
-e+e=0=N
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm telling you that even a field around an object that does have a net charge (such as an electron) does not repel itself and expand. Electric fields do not have charge regardless of whether the object that produces them is positive, negative or neutral. They transmit the effects of the charged particles that produce them but are not charged themselves. They are the messengers but they are not the ones writing the message.
My theory does not involve particles or objects. My theory looks at objects as if they are energy.
Post by: guest39538 on 08/11/2017 14:39:17
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm telling you that even a field around an object that does have a net charge (such as an electron)Because you are not measuring both polities at the same time. A+B=N
A=q1
B=q2
q1+q2 measures N always
Post by: Kryptid on 08/11/2017 16:07:31
Object? You are responding in a manner that is still considering existing theories such as the Rutherford model of the atom.
My theory does not involve particles or objects. My theory looks at objects as if they are energy.
Then your hypothesis has already been falsified by existing experiments.
Quote
Because you are not measuring both polities at the same time. A+B=N
A=q1
B=q2
q1+q2 measures N always
So now you're saying that there is no such thing as net charge? Sorry, but that's wrong. Ions have net charge.
Post by: guest39538 on 08/11/2017 19:11:46
So now you're saying that there is no such thing as net charge?Another huh from me, what are you reading ?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/11/2017 19:31:57
Another huh from me, what are you reading ?
q1+q2 measures N always
This makes it sound like you are saying that everything has no net charge. Otherwise, you would not have said "always".
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/11/2017 19:52:21
The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 14:23:11
Have you ever thought you are just not smart enough to understand it?The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/11/2017 21:58:28
Since your ideas are contradicted by reality, my understanding doesn't enter into it.Have you ever thought you are just not smart enough to understand it?The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 22:17:00
The reality that you cannot observe a Proton for example? The reality that the atomic model is based on something you can not observe because atoms are too tiny?Since your ideas are contradicted by reality, my understanding doesn't enter into it.Have you ever thought you are just not smart enough to understand it?The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/11/2017 22:31:37
The reality that you cannot observe a Proton for example? The reality that the atomic model is based on something you can not observe because atoms are too tiny?
You don't have to observe something visually in order to detect its presence. We've been able to detect atomic nuclei since the 1900's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment).
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 23:03:53
The reality that you cannot observe a Proton for example? The reality that the atomic model is based on something you can not observe because atoms are too tiny?
You don't have to observe something visually in order to detect its presence. We've been able to detect atomic nuclei since the 1900's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment).
Quote
discovered that every atom contains a nucleus where its positive charge and most of its mass are concentrated.
That does not prove the existence of the Proton .
Post by: Kryptid on 09/11/2017 23:54:48
That does not prove the existence of the Proton .
Have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#History)
Post by: guest39538 on 10/11/2017 00:13:01
That does not prove the existence of the Proton .
Have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#History)
Quote
He named this new fundamental building block of the nucleus the proton,
Which does not prove the nucleus is a particle.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/11/2017 00:21:23
Quote
The spontaneous decay of free protons has never been observed
This is what I am on about by the likewise to itself. Turning into wave energy.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/11/2017 16:51:28
Which does not prove the nucleus is a particle.
That depends upon how you define a particle. We know that the nucleus is much, much smaller than the atom as a whole, although it does have fuzzy boundaries. Particles have wave-like properties anyway.
Quote
This is what I am on about by the likewise to itself. Turning into wave energy.
You do realize that the sentence you quoted says that proton decay has not been observed, right? So what does turning into wave energy have to do with that quote?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/11/2017 21:37:50
You do realize that the sentence you quoted says that proton decay has not been observed, right? So what does turning into wave energy have to do with that quote?Because you can't observe wave energy which is permeating, it has no density. Might be able to detect it though.
That depends upon how you define a particle. We know that the nucleus is much, much smaller than the atom as a whole, although it does have fuzzy boundaries. Particles have wave-like properties anyway.Exactly, the nucleus itself can be just empty space that contains a positive energy. There is nothing that says that the particle itself exists. What we know about polarities which could explain a void beneath the surface of ''atoms''.
For example try to imagine an energy ''cloud'' that every point of the cloud was a p+ . We know that all points would be repulsed by each other.
The above action creating a central void or defined differently a ''flat spot'' of space.
The waves been ripples emanating from the flat spot.
This is what I 'see' about atoms.
The boundary or surface layer is made of two opposite polarities. The likewise properties of both polarities creating a central void. A ''spark'' strobes in this void like crossing terminals on a battery.
The surface layer has elastricity properties, it can contract or expand depending on polarity offset. For example if the + polarity was to gain energy , it stretches but also stretches - with it.
When the energy is exhausted , it contracts back to form.
The magnitude of the force between polarities playing a vital role in void diameter.
p.s a positive nucleus , all the negativity of space would be attracted to this point .
Post by: guest39538 on 10/11/2017 21:45:43
Post by: Kryptid on 10/11/2017 23:45:41
Because you can't observe wave energy which is permeating, it has no density. Might be able to detect it though.
They have mass and electric charge, both of which are conserved quantities that cannot vanish into nothingness. Due to those conservation laws, we already know what a decaying proton would look like and so far have not seen it.
Quote
Exactly, the nucleus itself can be just empty space that contains a positive energy. There is nothing that says that the particle itself exists. What we know about polarities which could explain a void beneath the surface of ''atoms''.
No it can't. Even if you want to call protons "positive energy", you're forgetting about neutrons. We know that there are atoms of the same chemical element that have different masses and different fundamental properties. Compare uranium-235 to uranium-238. Both have the same chemical properties but U-238 has heavier nuclei whereas U-235 is able to sustain a neutron chain reaction (unlike U-238). Neutrons are produced by chain reactions. Not only can we detect them, but we know from experiment what neutron energy levels are optimum to sustain a chain reaction in U-235.
Speaking of nuclear reactions, your model doesn't account for them. Atomic nuclei are not merely held together by electrostatic forces, because the energy released in nuclear reactions is much, much stronger than the energy released when molecules react (and molecules are held together by electrostatic forces). We know that the force which holds nuclei together is much, much shorter-ranged than the electromagnetic force because you can't get light nuclei to stick together unless you get them very close to each other (i.e. nuclear fusion).
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 01:50:24
you're forgetting about neutrons.Again a speculation particle which the extra mass can be explained as F² because m1 is attracted to m2 and m2 is equally attracted to m1, both are applying a force of attraction so the force is times 2. A 1kg object is only actually 1/2 that mass because the other half is the other pull from another object.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/11/2017 05:35:08
Again a speculation particle which the extra mass can be explained as F² because m1 is attracted to m2 and m2 is equally attracted to m1, both are applying a force of attraction so the force is times 2. A 1kg object is only actually 1/2 that mass because the other half is the other pull from another object.
Interesting how you completely ignored the meat of my post. You didn't address how different isotopes can exist in your model without neutrons or how sustained nuclear chain reactions are possible without neutrons.You realize that many nuclei are not merely twice the mass of their proton content, right? Hydrogen is a good example of this. The tritium isotope is 2.99 times as massive as the protium isotope even though both isotopes have identical degrees of positive charge in their nuclei. There are also some other issues:
(1) How was the half-life of free neutrons (881.5 seconds) determined if they don't exist?
(2) How is it that free neutrons can be generated on demand if they don't exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator)
(3) How can the mass of free neutrons be measured (939.6 MeV/c2) if they don't exist? Take note that I am not talking about neutrons in a nucleus. Neutrons have a different mass in the nucleus than they do when they are free.
(4) How can neutron cross sections be measured if neutrons don't exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross_section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross_section)
(5) What are neutron detectors detecting if not neutrons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_detection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_detection)
(6) How is it that exposure to neutron radiation can make things radioactive if neutrons don't exist?
Here's some additional reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_the_neutron#Discovery_of_the_neutron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_the_neutron#Discovery_of_the_neutron), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_detection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_detection)
Post by: The Spoon on 11/11/2017 10:43:19
Absolute crap.you're forgetting about neutrons.Again a speculation particle which the extra mass can be explained as F² because m1 is attracted to m2 and m2 is equally attracted to m1, both are applying a force of attraction so the force is times 2. A 1kg object is only actually 1/2 that mass because the other half is the other pull from another object.
Post by: The Spoon on 11/11/2017 10:45:29
What you 'see about atoms'. In other words what you imagine they look like based on your lack of basic scientific understanding and mad conceptualisation of the world.You do realize that the sentence you quoted says that proton decay has not been observed, right? So what does turning into wave energy have to do with that quote?Because you can't observe wave energy which is permeating, it has no density. Might be able to detect it though.That depends upon how you define a particle. We know that the nucleus is much, much smaller than the atom as a whole, although it does have fuzzy boundaries. Particles have wave-like properties anyway.Exactly, the nucleus itself can be just empty space that contains a positive energy. There is nothing that says that the particle itself exists. What we know about polarities which could explain a void beneath the surface of ''atoms''.
For example try to imagine an energy ''cloud'' that every point of the cloud was a p+ . We know that all points would be repulsed by each other.
The above action creating a central void or defined differently a ''flat spot'' of space.
The waves been ripples emanating from the flat spot.
This is what I 'see' about atoms.
The boundary or surface layer is made of two opposite polarities. The likewise properties of both polarities creating a central void. A ''spark'' strobes in this void like crossing terminals on a battery.
The surface layer has elastricity properties, it can contract or expand depending on polarity offset. For example if the + polarity was to gain energy , it stretches but also stretches - with it.
When the energy is exhausted , it contracts back to form.
The magnitude of the force between polarities playing a vital role in void diameter.
p.s a positive nucleus , all the negativity of space would be attracted to this point .
'Likewise to itself' is just mangling the English language.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 11:51:45
If you want to pretend that neutrons don't exist, you don't just have to explain the mass.you're forgetting about neutrons.Again a speculation particle ...
You also have to explain neutron diffraction, nuclear power, atom bombs, and neuron actuation as well as lots of other things that neutrons are actually observed to do.
You don't get to pick and choose about what bits of reality are real.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:19:55
. You didn't address how different isotopes can exist in your model without neutrons or how sustained nuclear chain reactions are possible without neutrons.You expect a lot from an amateur scientist and a young notion ,from a person who is does not know all science.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:21:36
A bit like some of the accepted science then hey, such as time dilation?Absolute crap.you're forgetting about neutrons.Again a speculation particle which the extra mass can be explained as F² because m1 is attracted to m2 and m2 is equally attracted to m1, both are applying a force of attraction so the force is times 2. A 1kg object is only actually 1/2 that mass because the other half is the other pull from another object.
It is a young notion so at this time it probably is a bit crappy.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:23:24
What I can't work out is how science got so lucky being so right and wrong at the same time.If you want to pretend that neutrons don't exist, you don't just have to explain the mass.you're forgetting about neutrons.Again a speculation particle ...
You also have to explain neutron diffraction, nuclear power, atom bombs, and neuron actuation as well as lots of other things that neutrons are actually observed to do.
You don't get to pick and choose about what bits of reality are real.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:25:47
'Likewise to itself' is just mangling the English language.No it is not, if you look in a mirror the image is likewise to yourself. If there is cube made up of atoms and all the atoms becomes cations, then all the atoms are likewise to themselves.
pfff learn how to read.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/11/2017 16:28:23
You expect a lot from an amateur scientist and a young notion ,from a person who is does not know all science.
Of course I do. When you claim that your model is definitely correct, you'd better bet that I'm going ask the hard questions. If your model can't explain phenomena that the existing model can, then it's already been falsified.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:31:54
But when you own science contradicts your own model, it is time to look for an alternative model.You expect a lot from an amateur scientist and a young notion ,from a person who is does not know all science.
Of course I do. When you claim that your model is definitely correct, you'd better bet that I'm going ask the hard questions. If your model can't explain phenomena that the existing model can, then it's already been falsified.
Start here with this premise:
Premise: A single polarity energy/field would expand by own it's mechanism of being likewise throughout of itself.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/11/2017 16:36:56
But when you own science contradicts your own model...
How so?
Quote
Start here with this premise:
Premise: A single polarity energy/field would expand by own it's mechanism of being likewise throughout of itself.
That doesn't happen in real life so your premise is already flawed. The field around a magnet stays the same size. It doesn't expand.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:42:50
That doesn't happen in real life so your premise is already flawed. The field around a magnet stays the same size. It doesn't expand.The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole according to the contradiction of your own
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Quote
The law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle.
This here says my first premise has call for questioning.
You and I both know likewise polarities mean expansion. If all points of a field were likewise in polarity, the field will expand according to physical laws. If it doe snot expand then it is not a single pole field.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:52:42
That is a contradiction.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:57:13
pe.jpg (35.25 kB . 898x572 - viewed 3331 times)According to the laws these two fields do this. All points of each field being likewise in polarity to itself.
added:
Electron field F1=q-=>4/3 πr³
Proton field F1=q+=>4/3 πr³
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 17:04:18
The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single poleNobody said it was.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 17:08:09
The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single poleNobody said it was.
I see you still have no good arguments or discussion.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 17:10:49
A Proton field is solid relatively to another Proton field.
A Proton field is not solid to an electron field.
An electron field is not solid to a proton field.
A stable state is A+B=N
All points of a negative field are attracted to all points of a positive field and vice versus. The merge produces the N-field where energy is at it's densest.
added- can be demonstrated using magnets.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 17:23:22
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 17:27:22
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 17:54:58
added thought - two opposite polarity ''energies'' can occupy the same point simultaneously.What do you think that sentence means?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 18:40:58
It means 0 point energy or a 0 point N-field ''particle'' that occupies the same 0 point at the same time.added thought - two opposite polarity ''energies'' can occupy the same point simultaneously.What do you think that sentence means?
added - When a N-field is split , the independent ''energies'' disperse into wave pE by the sphericalisation process.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 20:18:39
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 21:09:20
What do you think "zero point energy" means?It means geometrical points of space that have 0 dimension where it is hard to imagine something from nothing manifesting. It is the point of ''creation'' which in an infinite universe is the relative centre of each observers universe.
However I do not agree that a 0 point energy is lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. E would be at it's densest at 0 point in accordance with the transverse square law and the sphericalisation process.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 21:15:18
So, nothing to do with what everyone else means by zero point energy.What do you think "zero point energy" means?It means geometrical points of space that have 0 dimension where it is hard to imagine something from nothing manifesting. It is the point of ''creation'' which in an infinite universe is the relative centre of each observers universe.
However I do not agree that a 0 point energy is lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. E would be at it's densest at 0 point in accordance with the transverse square law and the sphericalisation process.
Do you understand why that makes it very difficult to understand what you are posting?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 21:28:47
So, nothing to do with what everyone else means by zero point energy.Is English your native language/ are you reading something else? always this I can't understand lark from you. Stop trolling.
Quote
Zero-point energy (ZPE) or ground state energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. ... Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding zero-point energy, in particular the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention.
Guess what? I understand it and it is not the lowest measure.
Energy is at its densest at the central point of sphericalisation. Following the inverse square law , the wave energy weakens over a distance . The strong force is always central where the weakened force is dynamic and drops off over a distance to where 0 applies.
E=
where S is equal to 0³ of space.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/11/2017 21:33:33
That doesn't happen in real life so your premise is already flawed. The field around a magnet stays the same size. It doesn't expand.The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole according to the contradiction of your own
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_lawQuoteThe law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle.
This here says my first premise has call for questioning.
You and I both know likewise polarities mean expansion. If all points of a field were likewise in polarity, the field will expand according to physical laws. If it doe snot expand then it is not a single pole field.
Coulomb's law describes what happens between electrically-charged objects. The existing model posits that electromagnetic fields are made up of virtual photons. Photons do not have any electric charge. Coulomb's law therefore does not apply to them. The "contradiction" is all in your head.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 21:42:05
I asked you what you thought ZPE meant and you said "It means geometrical points of space that have 0 dimension where it is hard to imagine something from nothing manifesting. It is the point of ''creation'' which in an infinite universe is the relative centre of each observers universe. "
And that is nothing to do with the conventional definition which is this
"Zero-point energy (ZPE) or ground state energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have."
When you start making up definitions like that it is you who is abusing the language, rather than me.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 21:43:48
Guess what? I understand it and it is not the lowest measure.No you don't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 21:44:22
Energy is at its densest at the central point of sphericalisation. Following the inverse square law , the wave energy weakens over a distance . The strong force is always central where the weakened force is dynamic and drops off over a distance to where 0 applies.
E= where S is equal to 0³ of space.
Word salad.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 22:05:42
Electromagnetic fields have polarity and are not made up of photons. Are you denying that magnets have poles?That doesn't happen in real life so your premise is already flawed. The field around a magnet stays the same size. It doesn't expand.The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole according to the contradiction of your own
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_lawQuoteThe law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle.
This here says my first premise has call for questioning.
You and I both know likewise polarities mean expansion. If all points of a field were likewise in polarity, the field will expand according to physical laws. If it doe snot expand then it is not a single pole field.
Coulomb's law describes what happens between electrically-charged objects. The existing model posits that electromagnetic fields are made up of virtual photons. Photons do not have any electric charge. Coulomb's law therefore does not apply to them. The "contradiction" is all in your head.
Therefore the slip in insight is yours.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 22:07:35
Because you say so, it is only word salad if you do not understand it. I expect about only the top 5% in the world would understand it.Energy is at its densest at the central point of sphericalisation. Following the inverse square law , the wave energy weakens over a distance . The strong force is always central where the weakened force is dynamic and drops off over a distance to where 0 applies.
E= where S is equal to 0³ of space.
Word salad.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 22:18:21
How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?Because you say so, it is only word salad if you do not understand it. I expect about only the top 5% in the world would understand it.Energy is at its densest at the central point of sphericalisation. Following the inverse square law , the wave energy weakens over a distance . The strong force is always central where the weakened force is dynamic and drops off over a distance to where 0 applies.
E= where S is equal to 0³ of space.
Word salad.
Do you understand the phrase "delusions of grandeur"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 22:19:49
Electromagnetic fields have polarity and are not made up of photons.Yes they are.
Anyone with a decent understanding of physics would know that. You don't.
You don't understand physics.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 22:34:48
Photons are a hypothetical virtual particle . Fields are made of dark energy, visible light is an invert in the dark energy field(s), an invert to cause the field to wave Q.F.F .Electromagnetic fields have polarity and are not made up of photons.Yes they are.
Anyone with a decent understanding of physics would know that. You don't.
You don't understand physics.
You don't understand Physics that is why you are a chemist. :D
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 22:37:14
Do you understand the phrase "delusions of grandeur"?Have I heard of delusions of grandeur? hmm... of course.
I notice you can't attack the physics involved in the N-field and Q.F.S
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 22:53:37
I notice you can't attack the physics involved in the N-field and Q.F.SThere isn't any physics to attack.
I see you forgot to answer my question.
How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?
Post by: Kryptid on 11/11/2017 23:33:04
Electromagnetic fields have polarity and are not made up of photons.
Remember, we are talking about the existing model here. Your original claim is that the currently-accepted model contradicts itself. You claim that this is so because a field is supposed to repel itself due to Coulomb's law. However, Coulomb's law posits that objects with the same electric charge repel each other. The current model posits that fields are composed of entities that are not electrically-charged (i.e. photons). Since they are not charged, Coulomb's law does not say that the particles in a field are supposed to repel each other. The existing model does not contradict itself because it does not posit what you claim that it posits. This is what we call the "straw-man fallacy".
Quote
Are you denying that magnets have poles?
No, I am not denying that magnets have poles. What I am denying is that you can apply the properties of the magnet to the properties of the magnetic field itself. The field is merely the way that the poles communicate with each other.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 00:14:53
There isn't any physics to attack.bs
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 00:15:48
Your original claim is that the currently-accepted model contradicts itself.Please provide reference of where I say that.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 00:23:25
The field is merely the way that the poles communicate with each other.communicate really? they can speak? Why do you ignore the actual theory and keep trying to defend present information?
If it were not polarity , all charge and energies would be likewise and not do anything.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/11/2017 03:35:25
Please provide reference of where I say that.
Here you are:
But when you own science contradicts your own model, it is time to look for an alternative model.
The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole according to the contradiction of your own
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_lawQuoteThe law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle.
This here says my first premise has call for questioning.
You and I both know likewise polarities mean expansion. If all points of a field were likewise in polarity, the field will expand according to physical laws. If it doe snot expand then it is not a single pole field.
Quote
''You'' are telling me a likewise field does not expand but on the other hand saying likewise repulses.
That is a contradiction.
It certainly sounds like you are saying that the currently-accepted model of electromagnetics contradicts itself. If that's not what you are saying, then good. The currently-accepted model explains existing phenomena, unlike your N-field which can't explain neutron-related phenomena and we are supposed to overlook that major flaw because you are an "amateur scientist" with a "young theory".
communicate really? they can speak?
I'm using communication in its loosest sense. Communication is an exchange of information. I guess that means you don't think sign language is a form of communication, since you seem to think communication automatically implies speaking. Fields exchange information about the particles that generate them. That's what I meant by "communicate".
Quote
Why do you ignore the actual theory and keep trying to defend present information?
When you say "the actual theory", are you talking about your N-field or about the currently-accepted model of matter? If you'll recall, I did address your theory and pointed out the holes in it regarding its inability to explain neutron-related phenomena. You responded by complaining about being an amateur scientist with a young theory. If you are going to acknowledge short-comings in your own ideas, then you need to be more humble about it instead of insisting that you've got the right idea and everyone else is wrong.
Quote
If it were not polarity , all charge and energies would be likewise and not do anything.
You keep conflating the polarity of a field and the charge that generates the field. That's like saying that a rock dropped into a pool and the waves created by that rock are the same thing.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 09:58:40
There is plenty of bs, but no physics.There isn't any physics to attack.bs
Please address at least one of those aspects.
And I'm going to keep asking this until you answer it:
How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 16:06:29
There is plenty of bs, but no physics.There isn't any physics to attack.bs
Please address at least one of those aspects.
And I'm going to keep asking this until you answer it:
How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?
bs = though you don't actually understand basic science,
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 16:17:38
bs = though you don't actually understand basic science,
Would you like to try that in English?
Meanwhile, How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?
Post by: The Spoon on 12/11/2017 16:27:34
You don't understand Physics that is why you are a chemistAnd what are you? You certainly don't work in any science related field. Decorator wasn't it?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 16:46:08
It's the all about me show , wow, discuss science or don't bother posting,You don't understand Physics that is why you are a chemistAnd what are you? You certainly don't work in any science related field. Decorator wasn't it?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 16:47:43
Would you like to try that in English?It was in English, want try to read without so much ambiguity?
I m a smart, remembering present information doesn't make a person smart. Enough said...
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 16:49:30
A positive or negative can not exist independently of each other.Please provide reference of where I say that.
Here you are:But when you own science contradicts your own model, it is time to look for an alternative model.The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole according to the contradiction of your own
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_lawQuoteThe law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle.
This here says my first premise has call for questioning.
You and I both know likewise polarities mean expansion. If all points of a field were likewise in polarity, the field will expand according to physical laws. If it doe snot expand then it is not a single pole field.Quote''You'' are telling me a likewise field does not expand but on the other hand saying likewise repulses.
That is a contradiction.
It certainly sounds like you are saying that the currently-accepted model of electromagnetics contradicts itself. If that's not what you are saying, then good. The currently-accepted model explains existing phenomena, unlike your N-field which can't explain neutron-related phenomena and we are supposed to overlook that major flaw because you are an "amateur scientist" with a "young theory".communicate really? they can speak?
I'm using communication in its loosest sense. Communication is an exchange of information. I guess that means you don't think sign language is a form of communication, since you seem to think communication automatically implies speaking. Fields exchange information about the particles that generate them. That's what I meant by "communicate".QuoteWhy do you ignore the actual theory and keep trying to defend present information?
When you say "the actual theory", are you talking about your N-field or about the currently-accepted model of matter? If you'll recall, I did address your theory and pointed out the holes in it regarding its inability to explain neutron-related phenomena. You responded by complaining about being an amateur scientist with a young theory. If you are going to acknowledge short-comings in your own ideas, then you need to be more humble about it instead of insisting that you've got the right idea and everyone else is wrong.QuoteIf it were not polarity , all charge and energies would be likewise and not do anything.
You keep conflating the polarity of a field and the charge that generates the field. That's like saying that a rock dropped into a pool and the waves created by that rock are the same thing.
Make a fist, open your fist sharply making a pfff sound as you do it, that is what likewise polarity energy does, it goes pfff and expands .
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 16:59:27
A positive or negative can not exist independently of each other.You just broke the irony meter.
Anyway, How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 17:03:25
You don't understand Physics that is why you are a chemist
It's the all about me show , wow, discuss science or don't bother posting,
Which do you mean?
Should you stick to the science (if you can find some) or should you pass rude comments about me being a chemist
Post by: Kryptid on 12/11/2017 17:36:23
A positive or negative can not exist independently of each other.
Sure they can. Cathode ray tubes separate electrons from their atoms quite readily. You can prove that they are negatively-charged by the way they react to magnetic fields: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray)
Quote
Make a fist, open your fist sharply making a pfff sound as you do it, that is what likewise polarity energy does, it goes pfff and expands .
You've yet to demonstrate that such a thing actually happens in real life.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 18:09:12
You've yet to demonstrate that such a thing actually happens in real life.Likewise polarities repulse
likewise polarities can not exist without opposite polarites
Q.F.S is real and can be shown with magnets.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 19:21:43
likewise polarities can not exist without opposite polaritesExcept, as has been pointed out, they do.
Anyway, How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 21:53:20
Except, as has been pointed out, they do.The repulsion would not allow the existence
Coulumb's law shows this
Likewise can not exist itself.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 21:59:43
Coulumb's law shows thisNo it doesn't.
Likewise can not exist itself.If you stop torturing the language like that it will be possible for us to know what you mean.
The repulsion would not allow the existenceReality does not agree with you, as illustrated by, for example, the CRT.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/11/2017 23:03:05
Likewise polarities repulse
likewise polarities can not exist without opposite polarites
Q.F.S is real and can be shown with magnets.
So how do you explain the existence of cathode rays?
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 23:17:33
Ions maybe, I am not really familiar with a Cathode ray nor how a CRT screen works. Why not try answering some of my questions for a change instead of asking me questions.Likewise polarities repulse
likewise polarities can not exist without opposite polarites
Q.F.S is real and can be shown with magnets.
So how do you explain the existence of cathode rays?
If you took an imaginary ball of positive polarity energy in your hand and squeezed it , it would have an opposing force?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 01:20:47
Ions maybe, I am not really familiar with a Cathode ray nor how a CRT screen works.
It was actually hypothesized at one point that cathode rays were composed of ions, but that was falsified when the mass of cathode rays was measured and found to be about 1,800 times lighter than even hydrogen atoms. The mass was measured by the degree to which the rays were deflected by electrically-charged plates.
Quote
If you took an imaginary ball of positive polarity energy in your hand and squeezed it , it would have an opposing force?
No. You can't squeeze energy.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 01:27:08
No. You can't squeeze energy.You have a poor imagination, if it helps you have a glove on that is composed of only electrons and you going to squeeze an electron cloud.
The cloud has opposing force right?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 02:26:27
You have a poor imagination
You can imagine whatever you want to. That doesn't mean that what you imagine is physically possible.
Quote
if it helps you have a glove on that is composed of only electrons and you going to squeeze an electron cloud.
The cloud has opposing force right?
If you're talking about electrons being squeezed against other electrons, yes, a repulsive force will develop between the electrons. That's because electrons all have a negative charge. That works for a cloud composed of electrons because the cloud is composed of negatively-charged entities. That analogy will fall apart if you try to apply it to a field by itself, since the field is not electrically-charged.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 02:53:00
If you're talking about electrons being squeezed against other electrons, yes, a repulsive force will develop between the electrons.Now that was not too difficult to answer was it?
So... if we took two individual electrons and fired them at each other, they would collide and be solid relative to each other?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 04:21:22
So... if we took two individual electrons and fired them at each other, they would collide and be solid relative to each other?
It's a little hard to say that they would be "solid" in the classical sense of the word. States of matter like solid, liquid and gas are emergent properties of large groups of particles. The exact behavior of two electrons interacting would depend on how fast they are moving. If they are moving slowly, they will just deflect one-another's paths due to electric repulsion. If they are moving very quickly, it's possible that the collision will generate other kinds of particles.
Since we are discussing the structure of matter, I thought this would be a very good video to post. It's a reconstruction of the original gold foil experiment using modern technology:
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 08:50:12
Thank you for sharing the interesting video, I tried something similar using a CRT tv and placing tin foil over the screen. The foil sucked into the screen and to my surprise the television went bang.So... if we took two individual electrons and fired them at each other, they would collide and be solid relative to each other?
It's a little hard to say that they would be "solid" in the classical sense of the word. States of matter like solid, liquid and gas are emergent properties of large groups of particles. The exact behavior of two electrons interacting would depend on how fast they are moving. If they are moving slowly, they will just deflect one-another's paths due to electric repulsion. If they are moving very quickly, it's possible that the collision will generate other kinds of particles.
Since we are discussing the structure of matter, I thought this would be a very good video to post. It's a reconstruction of the original gold foil experiment using modern technology:
Quote
If they are moving slowly, they will just deflect one-another's paths due to electric repulsion.
You mean likewise polarity repulsion?
Ok , so if we have a field constructed of electrons and a second field constructed of electrons, the fields are ''solid'' to each other?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 18:54:07
You mean likewise polarity repulsion?
Between electrically-charged objects specifically, yes.
Quote
Ok , so if we have a field constructed of electrons and a second field constructed of electrons, the fields are ''solid'' to each other?
You've basically described the current model of why objects are tangible: electrical repulsion between electrons prevents physical objects from phasing through each other. However, a collection of electrons alone would not make a stable physical object. For that reason, I'd say that if you started off with two collections of electrons beside each other, both of them would explode. You can't exactly call such a collection "solid". They'd behave more like rapidly expanding gas clouds.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 19:27:33
They'd behave more like rapidly expanding gas clouds.Exactly, what I refer to as micro bangs except it is the ''particle'' itself that rapidly expands. Do you agree that all points of an electron are likewise in polarity to all other points of the same electron?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 19:29:50
Exactly, what I refer to as micro bangs except it is the ''particle'' itself that rapidly expands. Do you agree that all points of an electron are likewise in polarity to all other points of the same electron?
As far as can be told by experiment, electrons are point particles. There is only one point. A single point isn't going to repel itself.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 19:48:05
This is where 0³ is applied , my single point has a volume of 1 . If it has dimensions it can't be a single point, it would have to be a 3 dimensional point 0³.Exactly, what I refer to as micro bangs except it is the ''particle'' itself that rapidly expands. Do you agree that all points of an electron are likewise in polarity to all other points of the same electron?
As far as can be told by experiment, electrons are point particles. There is only one point. A single point isn't going to repel itself.
Ok I understand what you are saying, but in a 3 dimensional point there would be certainly expansion by the repulsive forces .
But ok, I think you are understanding the notion more.
Of course if we were discussing protons, the same applies about the repulsive force?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 19:56:04
This is where 0³ is applied , my single point has a volume of 1 . If it has dimensions it can't be a single point, it would have to be a 3 dimensional point 0³.
Ok I understand what you are saying, but in a 3 dimensional point there would be certainly expansion by the repulsive forces .
There is no such thing as a 3-dimensional point. If it has dimensions, then it isn't a point. Points have no volume whatsoever. That automatically excludes any application of volume to point particles. I would also like to point out that the idea of a subatomic particle spontaneously expanding would imply that its associated wavelength will expand too. Since an increase in wavelength means a decrease in energy, a particle cannot expand without destroying energy. That violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. So no such thing can happen.
Quote
Of course if we were discussing protons, the same applies about the repulsive force?
They are slightly different. Protons, unlike electrons, have internal structure in the form of quarks which are strongly bound together by gluon fields. The very strong attractive forces between the quarks keeps protons stable (or metastable, if they do in fact decay after an extremely long time period).
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/11/2017 20:34:33
If take two nitrogen molecules and push them together they repel each other.If you're talking about electrons being squeezed against other electrons, yes, a repulsive force will develop between the electrons.Now that was not too difficult to answer was it?
So... if we took two individual electrons and fired them at each other, they would collide and be solid relative to each other?
By your "argument" nitrogen gas is a solid.
Do you understand why people don't think you understand science?
Anyway, How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 20:46:48
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 21:11:45
If take two nitrogen molecules and push them together they repel each other.Of course nitrogen gas is a solid relative to nitrogen gas.
By your "argument" nitrogen gas is a solid.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 21:13:56
I too am interested in why you think your intellect is on par with the top 5% of scientists.Who said scientists?
Good memory is not being smart, smart is the ability to adapt.
In my story, I am the hero of the story, so I have to be smarter than the ''enemy'' or I would not be the hero of my story.
Post by: The Spoon on 13/11/2017 21:24:01
In my imagination, I am the hero of the story, so I have to be smarter than the ''enemy'' or I would not be the hero of my story.
There, fixed it for you.
Nobody said tha good memory is being smart. Being smart is being able to utilise information and reason with it. Ergo, you are most definitely not in the top 5%.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 21:30:11
Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out think me. I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exact.In my imagination, I am the hero of the story, so I have to be smarter than the ''enemy'' or I would not be the hero of my story.
There, fixed it for you.
Nobody said tha good memory is being smart. Being smart is being able to utilise information and reason with it. Ergo, you are most definitely not in the top 5%.
I also defined darkness as a visual property of matter which is also exact.
In time I will define gravity and other stuff.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/11/2017 21:34:54
In time I will define gravity and other stuff.You may find that someone already did that.
Of course, there's nothing to stop you defining gravity as something different from what everybody else means by the word.
If you plan to start redefining words you should probably learn more about how words work.
For example
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out think me. "
should be
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out-think me. "
or even
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can outthink me. "
and when you say " I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exact. "
it suggests that you don't know what an adverb is.
You should have said " I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exactly. "
Well, obviously, you shouldn't have said any of those things because they are not true.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/11/2017 21:36:17
Of course nitrogen gas is a solid
It's probably time you stopped this sort of thing; you just look silly.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 21:39:10
Well obviously you understood it or you would not be able to correct it. So why be such an ''idiot'' about it?In time I will define gravity and other stuff.You may find that someone already did that.
Of course, there's nothing to stop you defining gravity as something different from what everybody else means by the word.
If you plan to start redefining words you should probably learn more about how words work.
For example
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out think me. "
should be
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out-think me. "
or even
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can outthink me. "
and when you say " I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exact. "
it suggests that you don't know what an adverb is.
You should have said " I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exactly. "
Well, obviously, you shouldn't have said any of those things because they are not true.
I notice you did not challenge the ideas but again try to focus on me. There isn't a single ''troll'' on the planet who can upset me or make me irate, I have to pretend to get irate .
Putting simply I am a genius and most of you are not.
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 21:40:29
Its about time you listened to somebody who understands more than you do. Humble pie costs nothing.Of course nitrogen gas is a solid
It's probably time you stopped this sort of thing; you just look silly.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/11/2017 21:58:38
Putting simply I am a genius and most of you are not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 22:03:38
Putting simply I am a genius and most of you are not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
[/quYou wished, then I would not be such a ''nightmare'' to the stereotypical scientist. Pure logic , something in which you lack.Putting simply I am a genius and most of you are not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 23:58:06
Who said scientists?
Alright, not the top 5% of scientists, but the top 5% of everyone. About 5% of the population scores above 125 on IQ tests. I once took an IQ test as a child and came out as 136. I guess that makes me in the top 5% too. I guess you're not so special.
Quote
Of course nitrogen gas is a solid relative to nitrogen gas.
"Solid" is a state of matter. The better word to use here is "tangible".
Quote
In my story, I am the hero of the story, so I have to be smarter than the ''enemy'' or I would not be the hero of my story.
Everybody is the "hero" of their own story, but that doesn't automatically make them right.
Quote
Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out think me.
Says the guy who thought a piece of modern art was proof of aliens. Please, try to be more humble.
Quote
You wished, then I would not be such a ''nightmare'' to the stereotypical scientist.
Whoever said you were? Most scientists probably don't even know you exist.
Feel free to address my last post about electrons and protons if you want to continue.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/11/2017 01:50:40
They are slightly different. Protons, unlike electrons, have internal structure in the form of quarks which are strongly bound together by gluon fields. The very strong attractive forces between the quarks keeps protons stable (or metastable, if they do in fact decay after an extremely long time period).Completely subjective. If there were 3 quarks they would repulse each other.
I would also like to point out that the idea of a subatomic particle spontaneously expanding would imply that its associated wavelength will expand too. Since an increase in wavelength means a decrease in energy, a particle cannot expand without destroying energy.HUh? it expands into potential wave energy , how do you conclude it destroys energy? It changes form that's all.
''Quarks'' are likewise to each other in polarity, they would repulse each other so can not be so.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/11/2017 02:19:00
Completely subjective.
Not at all. We have the experimental evidence for them. Even before quarks were detected, they were hypothesized to explain the existence of the "particle zoo" of hadrons. Once the model was pieced together, it became obvious that another particle must exist which was composed of a combination of quarks not yet seen (three "strange" quarks). That is, if the quark model was correct, then it should be possible to produce this particular particle (which was called the omega minus). The mass,and decay products were predicted in advance and those predictions were based on the quark model in 1961. The omega minus was finally discovered in 1964, giving good support for the quark model.
Quarks were first seen directly in deep inelastic scattering experiments. Since particles become smaller (i.e. have a shorter wavelength) the more energy they have, very energetic particles like high speed electrons can be used to probe the internal structure of objects even if they are as small as a proton. The trajectory and velocity of these particles after the collision reveals information about what they are scattering off of. Slamming energetic electrons against protons revealed that the electrons were not scattering off of a single object, but actually three objects, just as the quark model predicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering).
Quote
If there were 3 quarks they would repulse each other.
The electrostatic repulsion is more than made up for by the strong nuclear force holding the quarks together. Besides, some quarks have a positive charge and some a negative charge.
Quote
HUh? it expands into potential wave energy
What is potential wave energy?
Quote
how do you conclude it destroys energy? It changes form that's all.
The "size" of a subatomic particle is strongly correlated with its wavelength (which in turn is linked to its energy). Change one and you change the other.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/11/2017 02:27:11
Not at all. We have the experimental evidence for them. Even before quarks were detected, they were hypothesized to explain the existence of the "particle zoo" of hadrons. Once the model was pieced together, it became obvious that another particle must exist which was composed of a combination of quarks not yet seen (three "strange" quarks). That is, if the quark model was correct, then it should be possible to produce this particular particle (which was called the omega minus). The mass,and decay products were predicted in advance and those predictions were based on the quark model in 1961. The omega minus was finally discovered in 1964, giving good support for the quark model.First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.
Quarks were first seen directly in deep inelastic scattering experiments. Since particles become smaller (i.e. have a shorter wavelength) the more energy they have, very energetic particles like high speed electrons can be used to probe the internal structure of objects even if they are as small as a proton. The trajectory and velocity of these particles after the collision reveals information about what they are scattering off of. Slamming energetic electrons against protons revealed that the electrons were not scattering off of a single object, but actually three objects, just as the quark model predicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering.
You say the Quarks are held together by this magic force that overrides the electrostatic repulsion of the likewise forces. Without a direct observation these are no more than ''God'' theories, to say something exists without direct proof is just fooling oneself.
What is potential wave energy?Potential energy that has permeated that much it has no density. However transversely it be can be regathered .
Post by: Kryptid on 14/11/2017 02:46:24
First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark.
Yet that's exactly what particle accelerators do. It's not any different than looking at an object with your own eyes. You can observe and deduce the properties of an object by detecting the light reflecting off of it with your eyes. In exactly the same way, particle accelerators observe and deduce the properties of objects by detecting the particles reflecting off of them and into their detectors. The only difference is the medium doing the measuring (light vs. charged particles) and the size scale (macroscopic vs. sub-microscopic).
Quote
The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.
Then your N-field is entirely hypothetical, because you've never made a positive ID of an electron field merging with a proton field to produce an N-field by observation. I guess that means that you believe that the realm of the sub-microscopic will forever be a mystery and that any explanation for what happens at that level will never be more than a mere hypothesis because we will never see things at that scale "directly".
Quote
You say the Quarks are held together by this magic force that overrides the electrostatic repulsion of the likewise forces.
The gluon, the particle that mediates the strong force, has had plenty of its properties measured by experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Experimental_observations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Experimental_observations).
If protons are not composed of smaller particles, then how does your model explain the results of the deep inelastic scattering experiments? How were the instruments fooled into detecting three objects if there was only one? How were scientists able to accurately predict the existence and properties of the omega minus particle before it was discovered?
Quote
Without a direct observation these are no more than ''God'' theories, to say something exists without direct proof is just fooling oneself.
That certainly applies to your N-field. You've never had a direct observation of it.
Quote
Potential energy that has permeated that much it has no density. However transversely it be can be regathered .
An object with a finite energy density cannot spread out enough to reach no density. That would require it to spread infinitely.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/11/2017 06:50:30
How were the instruments fooled into detecting three objects if there was only one? How were scientists able to accurately predict the existence and properties of the omega minus particle before it was discovered?I would not be sure, maybe I do not know enough at this time to give an answer. I do not really understand the proof you offer so it is hard to say.
I think you may have just destroyed my N-field but you certainty have not destroyed my n-field or Q.F.S .
Please tell me what you know about the earths electromagnetic field, for example I am in England, when I look around me , what polarity am I observing at my location?
I think I observe an electron-proton field both polarities. A+B=n
Post by: Kryptid on 14/11/2017 15:19:10
Quote
I would not be sure, maybe I do not know enough at this time to give an answer. I do not really understand the proof you offer so it is hard to say.
The results of that experiment are described in this video. It describes what new phenomena were observed as the energy levels used to probe the proton go higher and higher. It can, admittedly, be difficult to understand the explanations at times. If you can withstand the robotic Ringo Starr voice that is used in the video, it should at least be somewhat illuminating. Start watching it at minute 44:
you certainty have not destroyed my n-field or Q.F.S
Then at least you must relegate it to the realm of a hypothesis, since by your own admission anything that has not had a positive ID by observation is just a hypothesis.
Quote
Please tell me what you know about the earths electromagnetic field, for example I am in England, when I look around me , what polarity am I observing at my location?
I would say that you'd have a north magnetic pole in England, but I can't be sure of that because there can be a lot of local variations in a magnetic field because the Earth is not uniform. Its strength certainly isn't: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84266 (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84266)
Quote
I think I observe an electron-proton field both polarities. A+B=n
Of course you have both polarities when an electron and proton are involved. What shape does your model predict atoms should be? By what reasoning should they have that given shape?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/11/2017 17:27:51
I have stopped temporarily to discuss 4.35s into the video where the ray are split into 3. Now to me, they would only split if they were likewise in polarity?QuoteI would not be sure, maybe I do not know enough at this time to give an answer. I do not really understand the proof you offer so it is hard to say.
The results of that experiment are described in this video. It describes what new phenomena were observed as the energy levels used to probe the proton go higher and higher. It can, admittedly, be difficult to understand the explanations at times. If you can withstand the robotic Ringo Starr voice that is used in the video, it should at least be somewhat illuminating. Start watching it at minute 44:you certainty have not destroyed my n-field or Q.F.S
Then at least you must relegate it to the realm of a hypothesis, since by your own admission anything that has not had a positive ID by observation is just a hypothesis.QuotePlease tell me what you know about the earths electromagnetic field, for example I am in England, when I look around me , what polarity am I observing at my location?
I would say that you'd have a north magnetic pole in England, but I can't be sure of that because there can be a lot of local variations in a magnetic field because the Earth is not uniform. Its strength certainly isn't: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84266 (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84266)QuoteI think I observe an electron-proton field both polarities. A+B=n
Of course you have both polarities when an electron and proton are involved. What shape does your model predict atoms should be? By what reasoning should they have that given shape?
Post by: Kryptid on 14/11/2017 20:47:25
I have stopped temporarily to discuss 4.35s into the video where the ray are split into 3. Now to me, they would only split if they were likewise in polarity?
Unfortunately, I don't know what part in the video you are talking about. Do you mean 44:35?
Post by: guest39538 on 14/11/2017 21:11:45
No 4 mins 10 seconds onwards. It says it emits a beam and the beam splits into 3.I have stopped temporarily to discuss 4.35s into the video where the ray are split into 3. Now to me, they would only split if they were likewise in polarity?
Unfortunately, I don't know what part in the video you are talking about. Do you mean 44:35?
Post by: Kryptid on 14/11/2017 21:43:27
No 4 mins 10 seconds onwards. It says it emits a beam and the beam splits into 3.
Oh, I see now. No, the reason that they split up is because each kind of radiation reacts differently to a magnetic field. Gamma rays have no electric charge or magnetic poles and so do not react to the applied magnetic field at all. Alpha rays are positively-charged and beta rays are negatively-charged, so they both react in opposite ways to the applied magnetic field, bending in opposite directions.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/11/2017 21:51:34
Alpha rays are positively-charged and beta rays are negatively-charged, so they both react in opposite ways to the applied magnetic field, bending in opposite directions.[/quot]
Ok , what is the polarity of the magnetic field?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/11/2017 21:52:44
First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.So, all that nonsense you have spouted throughout this thread can also be disregarded and the thread closed?
Or are you saying there's something special about your made up ( and unsupported) stuff that makes it better than the current (supported) theories?
If so, what?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/11/2017 21:54:21
Alpha rays are positively-charged and beta rays are negatively-charged, so they both react in opposite ways to the applied magnetic field, bending in opposite directions.[/quot]Typically perpendicular to the paper on which the mage is drawn.
Ok , what is the polarity of the magnetic field?
If you knew enough physics to hold a meaningful conversation about it, you could work out which way the magnetic field is pointing.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/11/2017 23:27:57
Ok , what is the polarity of the magnetic field?
Both poles are present. The path of charged particles are curved into circles when they move through a magnetic field (but in the animation, the particles hit a target before they can make a complete circle). Here's how the direction of the curve is found:
Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2017 11:02:50
Shrugs shoulders and looks up to the sky for an answer. ...............Q.F.S and the n-field still remains although the N-field may not.First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.So, all that nonsense you have spouted throughout this thread can also be disregarded and the thread closed?
Or are you saying there's something special about your made up ( and unsupported) stuff that makes it better than the current (supported) theories?
If so, what?
The n-field would be the unification of invisible fields that permeate into space.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2017 11:03:24
South magnetic pole at the top?Ok , what is the polarity of the magnetic field?
Both poles are present. The path of charged particles are curved into circles when they move through a magnetic field (but in the animation, the particles hit a target before they can make a complete circle). Here's how the direction of the curve is found:
Post by: Kryptid on 15/11/2017 19:33:53
South magnetic pole at the top?
I believe so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bored Chemist.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2017 19:37:47
You seem not to understand.Shrugs shoulders and looks up to the sky for an answer. ...............Q.F.S and the n-field still remains although the N-field may not.First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.So, all that nonsense you have spouted throughout this thread can also be disregarded and the thread closed?
Or are you saying there's something special about your made up ( and unsupported) stuff that makes it better than the current (supported) theories?
If so, what?
The n-field would be the unification of invisible fields that permeate into space.
Your other made up stuff suffers the same fault as the made up N field.
You have no basis for any of them.
so, regarding "Q.F.S and the n-field still remains "
No they don't.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2017 20:19:01
You seem to be adopting a style of writing :DYou seem not to understand.Shrugs shoulders and looks up to the sky for an answer. ...............Q.F.S and the n-field still remains although the N-field may not.First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.So, all that nonsense you have spouted throughout this thread can also be disregarded and the thread closed?
Or are you saying there's something special about your made up ( and unsupported) stuff that makes it better than the current (supported) theories?
If so, what?
The n-field would be the unification of invisible fields that permeate into space.
Your other made up stuff suffers the same fault as the made up N field.
You have no basis for any of them.
so, regarding "Q.F.S and the n-field still remains "
No they don't.
You are right of course I do not understand my own ideas (not).
Likewise polarities repulse
Likewise polarities are solid relative to each other.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2017 20:22:14
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2017 20:53:57
You are right of course I do not understand my own ideas (not).That's a strawman. I explained what it was that you didn't understand.
You don't seem to have grasped how science works. All your batty ideas fail your own implicit test.
You said "First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation."
Now you have to accept that the same thing applies to all your ideas.
And this
"Likewise polarities are solid relative to each other."
is meaningless.
I remind you that you said that nitrogen gas is a solid.
Post by: The Spoon on 15/11/2017 20:57:38
In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2017 21:03:30
I have already said early on this thread that this notion is at an early stage of development. So obviously it is only subjective thinking at this time until I prove it or have better supporting evidence.You are right of course I do not understand my own ideas (not).That's a strawman. I explained what it was that you didn't understand.
You don't seem to have grasped how science works. All your batty ideas fail your own implicit test.
You said "First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation."
Now you have to accept that the same thing applies to all your ideas.
And this
"Likewise polarities are solid relative to each other."
is meaningless.
I remind you that you said that nitrogen gas is a solid.
Quote
I remind you that you said that nitrogen gas is a solid.
It is relatively solid between two observers. I suppose as it is you I had better explain that the observers are nitrogen atoms/molecules.
Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2017 21:05:23
Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2017 23:56:02
So lets look at the north magnetic field , how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?South magnetic pole at the top?
I believe so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bored Chemist.
Post by: Kryptid on 15/11/2017 23:58:20
So lets look at the north magnetic field , how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?
I'm not particularly sure I understand that sentence. Are you trying to say that a north pole is the same as a positive charge?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 00:10:37
Nope I am asking is it possible that the north pole has no polarity but in some way by spin is polarised ? Similar to ionisation.So lets look at the north magnetic field , how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?
I'm not particularly sure I understand that sentence. Are you trying to say that a north pole is the same as a positive charge?
added- Put another way, if we had a field that was a stable state and all points of the field were at relative rest in respect to each other, there would be no polarity?
added- Because in a spin cycle , in respect to two sides of a wheel, although the wheel is spinning only one way, relatively each side of the wheel is spinning opposite directions.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 00:27:32
Post by: Kryptid on 16/11/2017 00:34:03
Nope I am asking is it possible that the north pole has no polarity but in some way by spin is polarised ? Similar to ionisation.So lets look at the north magnetic field , how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?
I'm not particularly sure I understand that sentence. Are you trying to say that a north pole is the same as a positive charge?
added- Put another way, if we had a field that was a stable state and all points of the field were at relative rest in respect to each other, there would be no polarity?
added- Because in a spin cycle , in respect to two sides of a wheel, although the wheel is spinning only one way, relatively each side of the wheel is spinning opposite directions.
If you start defining poles as having no polarity, you've pretty much created a contradiction. Motion is considered an important aspect of magnetism. In a reference frame where an electrically-charged object is moving (or spinning), an observer will observe a magnetic field. Relativity is actually pretty important in explaining the existence of magnetic fields: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0).
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 00:42:43
Hmm, before I watched your video link I had drawn this.Nope I am asking is it possible that the north pole has no polarity but in some way by spin is polarised ? Similar to ionisation.So lets look at the north magnetic field , how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?
I'm not particularly sure I understand that sentence. Are you trying to say that a north pole is the same as a positive charge?
added- Put another way, if we had a field that was a stable state and all points of the field were at relative rest in respect to each other, there would be no polarity?
added- Because in a spin cycle , in respect to two sides of a wheel, although the wheel is spinning only one way, relatively each side of the wheel is spinning opposite directions.
If you start defining poles as having no polarity, you've pretty much created a contradiction. Motion is considered an important aspect of magnetism. In a reference frame where an electrically-charged object is moving (or spinning), an observer will observe a magnetic field. Relativity is actually pretty important in explaining the existence of magnetic fields: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0).
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I will watch the video a few more times then try to find some more questions . Thank you for the education.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/11/2017 20:20:06
Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.No.
The fruit cake thinks he has corrected time dilation and so on.
Nobody else thinks so.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/11/2017 20:21:38
We know it isn't that, because that doesn't make any sense.So lets look at the north magnetic field , how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?South magnetic pole at the top?
I believe so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bored Chemist.
It's like saying "how do we know it is not a stable state field of Tuesday that had gone to bed with left handedness"
Post by: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 21:00:15
You have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums.Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 21:22:22
Really now, then you can challenge me on time and time dilation can you? Please feel free to start a challenge threadYou have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums.Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 21:23:35
You really h ave no thinking ability at all. A calm lake is a stable state until the wind is applied.We know it isn't that, because that doesn't make any sense.So lets look at the north magnetic field , how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?South magnetic pole at the top?
I believe so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bored Chemist.
It's like saying "how do we know it is not a stable state field of Tuesday that had gone to bed with left handedness"
Post by: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 21:30:14
The onus is on you to show your claim to be true.Really now, then you can challenge me on time and time dilation can you? Please feel free to start a challenge threadYou have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums.Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
Post by: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 21:32:38
What about tidal forces or temperature related circulation?You really h ave no thinking ability at all. A calm lake is a stable state until the wind is applied.We know it isn't that, because that doesn't make any sense.So lets look at the north magnetic field , how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?South magnetic pole at the top?
I believe so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bored Chemist.
It's like saying "how do we know it is not a stable state field of Tuesday that had gone to bed with left handedness"
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 21:51:39
Already shown in my paper when I use time planck to show the illusion of length contraction.The onus is on you to show your claim to be true.Really now, then you can challenge me on time and time dilation can you? Please feel free to start a challenge threadYou have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums.Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
tp0.jpg (23.51 kB . 898x572 - viewed 4437 times)Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 21:58:13
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 22:02:25
Post by: Kryptid on 16/11/2017 22:03:41
Like I said, you can't challenge me on time because I am the ''master'' on time and space and if Einstein was here today he would concede to me.
I wish this board had an appropriate emoticon to react to that statement with.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 22:04:40
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 22:06:38
Challenge this then? I know I am right and it can't be challenged.Like I said, you can't challenge me on time because I am the ''master'' on time and space and if Einstein was here today he would concede to me.
I wish this board had an appropriate emoticon to react to that statement with.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/11/2017 22:09:20
Challenge this then? I know I am right and it can't be challenged.
I already did in another thread. I'm getting off of this crazy train.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 22:10:12
Nobody as challenged my notions about time, in fact I have had agreement it is a timing dilation and not a time dilation.Challenge this then? I know I am right and it can't be challenged.
I already did in another thread. I'm getting off of this crazy train.
Post by: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 22:10:32
Oh interesting. I wasnt aware you had had a paper published...Already shown in my paper when I use time planck to show the illusion of length contraction.The onus is on you to show your claim to be true.Really now, then you can challenge me on time and time dilation can you? Please feel free to start a challenge threadYou have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums.Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
Post by: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 22:11:24
From who? Some fellow crazy?Nobody as challenged my notions about time, in fact I have had agreement it is a timing dilation and not a time dilation.Challenge this then? I know I am right and it can't be challenged.
I already did in another thread. I'm getting off of this crazy train.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 22:13:10
Oh interesting. I wasnt aware you had had a paper published...It is not published yet because I can't get any real help on it, it is also not finished because I have not finished doing gravity mechanism and other things. It is a huge paper when it is finished that well.....lets just say it is will be very controversial.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 22:15:47
Goc I think agreed with me and i think somebody else. I know I am right and I have been told to get my paper peer viewed by a science section in a top political forum.From who? Some fellow crazy?Nobody as challenged my notions about time, in fact I have had agreement it is a timing dilation and not a time dilation.Challenge this then? I know I am right and it can't be challenged.
I already did in another thread. I'm getting off of this crazy train.
They said thank you for sharing and they would look forward to seeing the finished article.
I am not crazy , I know I just know when I am 100% correct or not,
Post by: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 22:53:48
So you havent written a paper.Oh interesting. I wasnt aware you had had a paper published...It is not published yet because I can't get any real help on it, it is also not finished because I have not finished doing gravity mechanism and other things. It is a huge paper when it is finished that well.....lets just say it is will be very controversial.
Post by: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 22:57:25
Yes of course you know you are correct. That is the problem. You evidence is' knowing' you are correct. So can you point to where people 'agreed' with you precisely?Goc I think agreed with me and i think somebody else. I know I am right and I have been told to get my paper peer viewed by a science section in a top political forum.From who? Some fellow crazy?Nobody as challenged my notions about time, in fact I have had agreement it is a timing dilation and not a time dilation.Challenge this then? I know I am right and it can't be challenged.
I already did in another thread. I'm getting off of this crazy train.
They said thank you for sharing and they would look forward to seeing the finished article.
I am not crazy , I know I just know when I am 100% correct or not,
interesting that you say a 'top political forum' agreed but cant tell us which one. Even if you did, do you really think a political forum is the best judge of whether a scientific paper should be published or not? Why not ask actual scientists?
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 23:02:06
I have asked scientists, but who is a scientist on here? who can say they are qualified to peer view?Yes of course you know you are correct. That is the problem. You evidence is' knowing' you are correct. So can you point to where people 'agreed' with you precisely?Goc I think agreed with me and i think somebody else. I know I am right and I have been told to get my paper peer viewed by a science section in a top political forum.From who? Some fellow crazy?Nobody as challenged my notions about time, in fact I have had agreement it is a timing dilation and not a time dilation.Challenge this then? I know I am right and it can't be challenged.
I already did in another thread. I'm getting off of this crazy train.
They said thank you for sharing and they would look forward to seeing the finished article.
I am not crazy , I know I just know when I am 100% correct or not,
interesting that you say a 'top political forum' agreed but cant tell us which one. Even if you did, do you really think a political forum is the best judge of whether a scientific paper should be published or not? Why not ask actual scientists?
See my paper I brought to the top. of section.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2018 05:25:54
Author - S.P. Leese
Abstract - This paper is a theory of an energy Matrix, an energy matrix is used to describe the primary source of energy for a system. This paper is intended to show how the energy of the Universe is formed and powers the Universe. . Showing that this formation of energy is a construct of two parts. Neither part of the process having the mechanics to retain form, without the co-existence of their opposite sign. A co-existence Matrix that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometrical point . A co-existence that also explains and answers the mechanics of the gravity process. Proof's explained using two individual S-Matrices and a single co-existence Matrix.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2018 06:15:11
transpose 1.jpg (35.68 kB . 683x451 - viewed 3774 times)ƒ:a<[m x m x m ]>→a<<[n x n x n]>>
T(a)=>a
ƒ:b<[m x m x m ]>→b<<[n x n x n]>>
T(b)=.>b
ƒ:ab<[m x m x m ]>→ab<<[m x m x m]>>
T(ab)=ab
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2018 10:47:17
Summary - Explaining Universal process with Matrices and completing Quantum mechanics.
Author - S.P. Leese
Abstract - This paper is a theory of an energy Matrix, an energy matrix is used to describe the primary source of energy for a system. This paper is intended to show how the energy of the Universe is formed and powers the Universe. . Showing that this formation of energy is a construct of two parts. Neither part of the process having the mechanics to retain form, without the co-existence of the opposite sign. A co-existence Matrix that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometrical point . A co-existence that also explains and answers the mechanics of the gravity process. Proof's explained using two individual S-Matrices and a single co-existence Matrix.
Introduction.
The intended reach of this paper is for the more open minded reader. The aim of the paper is to show ostensible content and a paradox of present information. Things that are ostensible are extremely difficult to show , things that appear to be true to most people will take some serious convincing the information is otherwise.
In showing the ostensible content, I hope to also show gravity mechanism by the truer content I provide. The truer content having no ostensible, appearing to be true, because it is true and of axiom values.
Main text
Let us begin and for the purposes of this discussion, be clear in our minds what I mean by a Matrix. For the purpose of understanding, I define a Matrix as an invisible box that has X,Y and Z dimensions. Within the 3-dimensional invisible box is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values, similar to, but not exactly like the classical "matrix".
S-Matrix , presently defined as a scatter Matrix , again I define it slightly different in that I will define it a spread Matrix, meaning expansion. Also consider that this is not a maths matrix, it is a schematic Matrix with explanation and directional prompts.
In the Matrix arrangements, I will represent actions with symbols, a sort of symbolic language that represents the physics involved . cause and affect. To help clarify what the symbolic language means, I will now define the symbol use and sentencing structure.
Expansion = ←→
Contraction = →←
change = Δ
function = ƒ
Vector direction = →
Vector direction = ←
S-matrix E1pos = [a]
S-matrix E2neg = b]
Co-existence Matrix E1pos+E2neg=[ab]
E1pos = energy field mono pole positive sign
E1neg = energy field mono pole negative sign
xyz = dimensions
In example sentence structure ←→a=a which means the expansion of a is because of a
←→b=b
→←a=b
→←b=a
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2018 20:54:29
Does this say it all ?
In example sentence structure ←→a=a which means the expansion of a is because of a
←→b=b which means the expansion of b is because of b
→←a=b which means the contraction of a is because of b
→←b=a which means the contraction of b is because of a
Post by: guest39538 on 13/02/2018 12:06:14
S-matrix E2neg = b/k
super co-exist matrix = a+b/k
????????????????????
S-matrix E1pos λE = a/k
S-matrix E2neg λE = a+b/k
Super matrix field particle = a+b
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 12:32:50
ƒ:a<[m x m x m ]>→a<<[n x n x n]>>
T(a)=>a
ƒ:b<[m x m x m ]>→b<<[n x n x n]>>
T(b)=.>b
ƒ:ab<[m x m x m ]>→ab<<[m x m x m]>>
T(ab)=ab
T = transformation
A m * n matrix , m would be a dimension and n would be any dimension?
So m*m*m would be a 3*3*3 matrix with dimensions?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 14:06:39
how the hell do I get people to comment? ISay something comprehensible.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 18:11:52
Your so full of beans, I think though I am giving up anyway, science is full of rudeness and ignorance and arrogance. When I first started learning science I expected much better, but now to be honest , I just see mostly fools like yourself, one of gods army, trolls.how the hell do I get people to comment? ISay something comprehensible.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 18:52:34
Your so full of beans, I think though I am giving up anyway, science is full of rudeness and ignorance and arrogance.Do you have a mirror handy?
Post by: guest39538 on 15/02/2018 10:29:53
It is not a choice by me to be arrogant, it is a forced discipline because people would always talk rather than listen........meaning it does not matter what the idea is, the defence only put up a defence and cannot falsify the prosecution.Your so full of beans, I think though I am giving up anyway, science is full of rudeness and ignorance and arrogance.Do you have a mirror handy?
Post by: guest39538 on 15/02/2018 10:32:21
Evidence - Exhibit 1-a , Coulombs laws of likewise polarities repulse.
Evidence - Exhibit 1-b ab + (-a) = (-b)
Evidence - Exhibit 1-c a + (-a) = 0
Evidence - Exhibit 1-d b + (-b) = 0
Evidence - Exhibit 1-e a + b = ab
Evidence - Exhibit 1-f (ab) + (-a) = (b) = (-b) = 0 □
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2018 19:32:48
people would always talk rather than listen
Do you have a mirror handy?
Evidence - Exhibit 1-e a + b = abCare to guess again?
Post by: guest39538 on 15/02/2018 21:20:22
Math is not a guess .......people would always talk rather than listenDo you have a mirror handy?Evidence - Exhibit 1-e a + b = abCare to guess again?
but i guess i missed out time
(a + b) / t = ab
Post by: Kryptid on 15/02/2018 23:46:48
Math is not a guess .......
It's possible to get math wrong, though. For example, "ab" is shorthand for "a multiplied by b" and is not equivalent to "a + b" (unless both a and b are equal to 2).
Post by: guest39538 on 16/02/2018 00:20:27
Ok ty, note taken. I should of kept to a.b but I am going to change it again and tryMath is not a guess .......
It's possible to get math wrong, though. For example, "ab" is shorthand for "a multiplied by b" and is not equivalent to "a + b" (unless both a and b are equal to 2).
a={i}
b = [j]
a + b = [i} + [j] = c
a + (-i) = 0
b + (-j) = 0
a i + b j = ci,j = 1
????????????
You can work out i and j are 0.5
Post by: guest39538 on 16/02/2018 00:47:54
Maybe I should put (a i + b j )/t = c i,j = 1
Post by: guest39538 on 16/02/2018 02:20:30
Author - S.P. Leese
Abstract - This paper is a theory of an energy Matrix, an energy matrix is used to describe the primary source of energy for a system. This paper is intended to show how the energy of the Universe is formed and powers the Universe. . Showing that this formation of energy is a construct of two parts. Neither part of the process having the mechanics to retain form, without the co-existence of their opposite sign. A co-existence Matrix that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometrical point . A co-existence that also explains and answers the mechanics of the gravity process and contests the present atomic model by creating a paradox. Proof's given in the form of three matrices and the corresponding equations.
Introduction.
The aim of this paper is to show ostensible content and a paradox of present information. Things that are ostensible are extremely difficult to show , things that appear to be true to most people will take some serious convincing the information is otherwise.
In showing the ostensible content, I hope to also show gravity mechanism by the ''truer'' content I provide. The ''truer'' content having no ostensible, appearing to be true, because it is true and of axiom values.
Main text
Let us begin and for the purposes of this discussion, be clear in our minds what I mean by a Matrix. For the purpose of understanding, I define a Matrix as an invisible box that has X,Y and Z dimensions. Within the 3-dimensional invisible box is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values and/or elements. In my presentation I will present three individual 1*1*1 matrices labelled a,b and c. Within matrices a and b will be two individual integer elements i and j , let a = i and let b = j. In matrix c there will be merged integer elements i and j, let c = a + b = ci,j.
Last but not least, let i = positive polarity and let j = negative polarity .
My first question is , can i exist in a single matrix a? Now quite clearly all the coordinate points of Matrix a, would be repulsive points to all other points of the same matrix a. By the laws of Physics and Coulomb's laws , matrix a should always be in a state of expansion.
Matrix a would have no strong nuclear force or gravity. All the force would be ''centrifugal'' (outwards from a central point) , leaving a central void.
Which brings me to my first equation and diagram:
i matrix.jpg (11.05 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3317 times)a + (-i) = 0 representing the inverse of i, resulting in the loss of i .
The result , a newly transformed matrix a = 0 or an empty matrix.
a=0 matrix.jpg (10.45 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3280 times)Post by: guest39538 on 16/02/2018 03:01:12
Ladies and gentlemen , a ≡ i shows us that i can not exist in a single matrix a. One must assume a ⇔ b .
The equation for b is:
b + (-j) = 0
Showing that
b ≡ j ∴ (a + (-i))+(b + (-j)) = (a+b)+(-i,-j)=0 ∴ (a + (i/t)) + (b + (j/t)) = ci,j/t=1□
p.s that did hurt my brain,.....
added
a= i / k
b = j / k
c = i + j = 1
λE1 = i / k
λE2 = j / k
λE1 + λE2 = 1 = (E = mc²)?????
Post by: guest39538 on 16/02/2018 16:33:16
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2018 18:38:39
I am dying to know but the teachers are saying little, is my math improving?We can only be teachers if you learn...
Post by: guest39538 on 16/02/2018 20:29:39
But what I learn needs to be tested and ''ticked'' or corrected.I am dying to know but the teachers are saying little, is my math improving?We can only be teachers if you learn...
I think my latest math using i and j is correct?
a + (-i) = 0
Originally I put a + (-a) = 0
but I am not taking away a, I am taking away the integer of a which is i.
Is this equation representative of the inverse? I read put this way it was.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 00:48:40
I think my latest math using i and j is correct?Since you have yet to properly define any of the things you are talking about it is impossible to say (usually) if you are right or wrong.
We can only comment on blatant contradictions.
When I did so you said I was wrong, but posted word salad as a "reason".
There's no way anyone can really "teach" in those conditions.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 02:03:24
Ok, point taken, but I have no idea why you say I have not defined things. I think I define it well?I think my latest math using i and j is correct?Since you have yet to properly define any of the things you are talking about it is impossible to say (usually) if you are right or wrong.
We can only comment on blatant contradictions.
When I did so you said I was wrong, but posted word salad as a "reason".
There's no way anyone can really "teach" in those conditions.
Main text
Let us begin and for the purposes of this discussion, be clear in our minds what I mean by a Matrix. For the purpose of understanding, I define a Matrix as an invisible box that has X,Y and Z dimensions. Within the 3-dimensional invisible box is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values and/or elements. In my presentation I will present three individual 1*1*1 matrices labelled a,b and c. Within matrices a and b will be two individual integer elements i and j , let a = i and let b = j. In matrix c there will be merged integer elements i and j, let c = a + b = ci,j.
Last but not least, let i = positive polarity and let j = negative polarity .
What is wrong with that ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 11:44:15
" the integer of a which is i. "
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 11:48:15
You have not, for example defined what you mean hereI did, I said it was a positive mono-pole integer, integer does mean interior?
" the integer of a which is i. "
Can't I put half integer because I need 0.5 ?
Because in this matrix 1 positive charge = half a Neutral charge.
I can't put 1 + 1 because that would be two, I Need 1 + 1 = 1
So 0.5 is one but half see
added- Could I put something like i =1 = 0.5i,j
i + j = 1
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 12:06:52
said it was a positive mono-pole integer, integer does mean interior?You now need to say what you mean by " positive mono-pole integer"
And, re. "integer does mean interior?".
No, an integer is a whole number with no fractions or decimals.
That's part of the problem with your foolish refusal to start by learning the basics.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 13:07:40
There is no refusal, a whole number is a ''volume'' in a matrix, the interior, I know a whole number is an integer.said it was a positive mono-pole integer, integer does mean interior?You now need to say what you mean by " positive mono-pole integer"
And, re. "integer does mean interior?".
No, an integer is a whole number with no fractions or decimals.
That's part of the problem with your foolish refusal to start by learning the basics.
I thought a mono-pole positive would be self explanatory, I will just say an electron or Proton if it helps?
The obvious problem is will people understand i = 1 and j = 1, i+j = i,j=1
You are good at chemistry, how would you explain two individual substances merging to become 1?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 13:11:33
a ''volume'' in a matrix, the interior
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 13:13:49
OK, so now you need to explain what you think this means.It means to me, the interior of the defined parameters of the matrix , i.e 1*1*1 or m*m*m or m*n or n*n etc.a ''volume'' in a matrix, the interior
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 15:13:05
the interior of the defined parameters of the matrix
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 17:13:14
OK, so now you need to explain what you think this means.lol are you joking? The parameters of the Matrix are the boundary and within that boundary. Defined often by numbers.the interior of the defined parameters of the matrix
So if I define the boundary parameter as 1*1*1 and the interior parameter as 1, I think you can work out that the 1 is 3 dimensional and fills the interior of the boundary parameter. i.e a volume equal to real numbers R³.
ok?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 17:19:53
The parameters of the Matrix are the boundary and within that boundary.What boundary?
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 17:22:17
The boundary defined by the Matrix's dimensions R³ = m * m * m = 1*1*1 for exampleThe parameters of the Matrix are the boundary and within that boundary.What boundary?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 17:56:35
The boundary defined by the Matrix's dimensions R³ = m * m * m = 1*1*1 for exampleThat's nonsense because a matrix only has two dimensions.
And if you abandoned your policy of refusing to learn the basics, you might have known that and not wasted all this time.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 18:09:32
Huh, a R² has two dimensions x,y , a R³ has 3 dimensions x,y,zThe boundary defined by the Matrix's dimensions R³ = m * m * m = 1*1*1 for exampleThat's nonsense because a matrix only has two dimensions.
And if you abandoned your policy of refusing to learn the basics, you might have known that and not wasted all this time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 20:02:45
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 20:04:45
Title - Quantum N-field theory .
Author - S.P. Leese
Abstract - This paper is a theory of a R³ real coordinate space energy Matrix, an energy matrix used to describe the primary source of energy for a system. This paper is intended to show how the energy of the Universe is formed and powers the Universe. . Showing that this formation of energy is a construct of two parts. Neither part of the process having the mechanics to retain form without the co-existence of their opposite sign. A co-existence Matrix that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometrical point . A co-existence that also explains and answers the mechanics of the gravity process returning the conclusion of that neutral is attracted to neutral . This paper also contests the present atomic model by creating a paradox(s). Proof's given in the form of three matrices with the corresponding equations.
Introduction.
The aim of this paper is to show ostensible content and a paradox of present information. Things that are ostensible are extremely difficult to show , things that appear to be true to most people will take some serious convincing the information is otherwise.
In showing the ostensible content, I hope to also show gravity mechanism by the ''truer'' content I provide. The ''truer'' content having no ostensible, appearing to be true, because it is true and of axiom values.
Main text
Let us begin and for the purposes of this discussion, be clear in our minds what I mean by a R³ real coordinate space Matrix. For the purpose of understanding, I define the Matrix as a real volume of space that has X,Y and Z dimensions. Within the 3-dimensional defined boundary is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values and/or elements. In my presentation I will present three individual 1*1*1 matrices labelled a,b and c. Within matrix a and b will be two individual integer elements i and j , let a = i and let b = j. In matrix c there will be merged elements i and j, let c = a + b = ci,j.
Last but not least let i = postive polarity and let j = negative polarity .
My first question is , can i exist in a single matrix a? Now quite clearly all the coordinate points of Matrix a, would be repulsive points to all other points of the same Matrix a. By the laws of Physics and Coulomb's laws , Matrix a should always be in a state of expansion.
Matrix a would have no strong nuclear force or gravity. All the force would be ''centrifugal'' (outwards from a central point) , leaving a central void.
Which brings me to my first equation :
a = {i}
i = 1
a + (-i) = 0
Now ladies and gentlemen, the above equation quite clearly shows that Matrix a, cannot retain form and will ''disperse'' directly proportionally to the inverse on any attempt to create the Matrix. Thus creating a Paradox of the existence of a Proton as presented in the present model.
How can a Proton Matrix exist when all the points of the Matrix would be likewise in polarity throughout the Matrix?
This leads us to our next equation and a look at Matrix b, one must assume a ⇔ b .
b = [j]
j = 1
b + (-j) = 0
Now ladies and gentlemen, the above equation quite clearly shows that Matrix b, also cannot retain form and will ''disperse'' directly proportionally to the inverse. Therefore any attempt to create matrix b, will also result in failure. This creating our second Paradox, how can an electron Matrix exist when all the points of the Matrix are likewise in polarity throughout the matrix?
Let us now enter Matrix c into the discussion and the following equation
(a+b) = c
(i + j) = 1
Now ladies and gentlemen you may already 'see' an error in my equation, an ''error'' that is intentional that will allow me to explain.
I already stated that i = 1 and j = 1, so the summation of i + j should equal 2 and not (i + j ) = 1 that I previosly stated. However this is a special case where
i = 0.5i,j and j = 0.5 i,j therefore (a + b ) = (i + j) = (1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5)=(ci,j)=1
Now ladies and gentlemen, Matrix c can be created and does retain form because opposites attract, this allows the Matrix to have Physicality that Paradox's the existing atomic model.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 20:05:05
What do you think R3 is?Real coordinate space.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 21:21:20
(Spoiler alert- it isn't)
Each point (or set of points in) it in it can be labelled with a matrix. That matrix has 2 dimensions- columns and rows.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 21:59:23
Each point (or set of points in) it in it can be labelled with a matrix. That matrix has 2 dimensions- columns and rows.
That is a bit un-advanced. Does it really matter as long as I explain the context of use?
Why can't we have a 3 dimensional matrix?
I understand what you are saying but 3d is doable.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 22:43:18
Why can't we have a 3 dimensional matrix?Because it's not a matrix- for example, the rukes of matrix multiplication couldn't be applied to it.
Does it really matter as long as I explain the context of use?You have barely explained anything yet.
I understand what you are saying but 3d is doableQuite possibly, but since the maths for it is, as yet, undefined, you can't reasonably say that you have done anything yet.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 23:29:36
pfffff, its hard to please. Ok I will re-word yet again and change everything to suit . I will use a R³ coordinate space and define the space to have an inner array .Why can't we have a 3 dimensional matrix?Because it's not a matrix- for example, the rukes of matrix multiplication couldn't be applied to it.Does it really matter as long as I explain the context of use?You have barely explained anything yet.I understand what you are saying but 3d is doableQuite possibly, but since the maths for it is, as yet, undefined, you can't reasonably say that you have done anything yet.
It hardly matters the outcome is the same and neutral will always be attracted to neutral. I have given science the information, they should be able do the rest, can' t I just be excused ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 10:00:55
define the space to have an inner arrayYou will need to explain that.
I have given science the information,You have given nothing but nonsense.
neutral will always be attracted to neutral.And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 14:21:19
Now I am sure you are just trolling, go find somebody else speak too, you can go be bored elsewhere.define the space to have an inner arrayYou will need to explain that.I have given science the information,You have given nothing but nonsense.neutral will always be attracted to neutral.And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 14:47:51
neutral will always be attracted to neutral.And they bounce of each other because Neutral pushes back as in Newtons third law, don't you know anything Mr Chemist?
And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.
The forces involved in my merged i,j ''matrix''
i →F ← j
j→F←i
i←F→i
j←F→J
Now do the maths Mr Chemist lets go get our noble prize . you know the idea and you are not stupid, I bet you could do my maths I need in minutes?
Explain
[i,j]→g←[i,j]
[i,j] ←F→[i,j] pushes back
G= (i,j)(i,j)/r²
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 15:00:03
model g.jpg (12.97 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3299 times)i and j are mass-less unless co-efficient. (factor that measures a particular property.)
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 17:37:56
Edit for your peer please.
Title - Quantum N-field theory .
Author - S.P. Leese
Abstract - This paper is a theory of a R³ real coordinate space energy ''Matrix'', similar to, but not exactly like the classical "matrix". An energy matrix used to describe the primary source of energy for a system. This paper is intended to show how the energy of the Universe is formed and powers the Universe. . Showing that this formation of energy is a construct of two parts. Neither part of the process having the mechanics to retain form without the co-existence of their opposite sign. A co-existence Matrix that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometrical point . A co-existence that also explains and answers the mechanics of the gravity process explaining the conclusion of that neutral is attracted to neutral . This paper also contests the present atomic model by creating a paradox(s). Proof's given in the form of three ''matrices'' and thought with the corresponding equations.
Introduction.
The aim of this paper is to show ostensible content and a paradox of present information. Things that are ostensible are extremely difficult to show , things that appear to be true to most people will take some serious convincing the information is otherwise.
In showing the ostensible content, I hope to also show gravity mechanism by the ''truer'' content I provide. The ''truer'' content having no ostensible, appearing to be true, because it is true and of axiom values.
Main text
Let us begin and for the purposes of this discussion, be clear in our minds what I mean by a R³ real coordinate space Matrix. similar to, but not exactly like the classical "matrix. For the purpose of understanding, I define the Matrix as a real volume of space that has X,Y and Z dimensions. Within the 3-dimensional defined boundary is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values and/or elements. In my presentation I will present three individual 1³ matrices labelled a,b and c. Within matrices a and b will be two individual integer elements i and j , let a = i and let b = j.
a and b.jpg (18.26 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3263 times)In matrix c there will be merged elements i and j, let c = a + b = ci,j.
i and j.jpg (17.12 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3281 times)Last but not least let's assign that i = positive mono-pole and let's assign j = negative mono-pole and both i and j have physicality.
My first question is , can i exist in a single matrix a? Now quite clearly all the coordinate points of Matrix a, would be repulsive points to all other points of the same Matrix a. By the laws of Physics and Coulomb's laws , Matrix a should always be in a state of expansion.
Citation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Quote
Coulomb's law states that: The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them.
Matrix a would have no strong nuclear force or gravity. All the force would be ''centrifugal'' (outwards from a central point) , leaving a central void.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 17:55:18
And they bounce of each other because Neutral pushes back as in Newtons third law, don't you know anything Mr Chemist?Among the quite large number of things I know is that , in the limit, what causes them to bounce is Pauli pressure and there's no way Newton would have known about that.
The forces involved in my merged i,j ''matrix''
i →F ← j
j→F←i
i←F→i
j←F→J
Still gibberish.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 18:11:10
read my edit bruva....And they bounce of each other because Neutral pushes back as in Newtons third law, don't you know anything Mr Chemist?Among the quite large number of things I know is that , in the limit, what causes them to bounce is Pauli pressure and there's no way Newton would have known about that.The forces involved in my merged i,j ''matrix''
i →F ← j
j→F←i
i←F→i
j←F→J
Still gibberish.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 18:14:11
read my edit bruva....Practically none of it makes sense
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 18:19:23
Well that is strange because I can read English and I know I have explained it in very simple English and used clear context and definition. Are you saying you have a learning disorder and cannot understand the explanation of a definition being used for the purpose of the discussion?read my edit bruva....Practically none of it makes sense
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 18:22:43
Quote
Coulomb's law states that: The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 18:27:57
ƒ:ΔR³=F1
So stop pretending you do not understand.
The map is ƒ: a = 0→n
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 23:44:10
A proposal for consideration of a N-field quantum theory.
- S.P. Leese, (credentials : Approximately 10 years of experience on science forums)
Spring 2018
Abstract:
This paper proposes a theory of a “R³ real coordinate space-energy ''matrix'', similar to, but not exactly like the classical "matrix"., that may describe the primary source of energy for a given system. First will be shown is that the formation of energy is a two part construct , with either part of the processing , the mechanics failing to retain form without the co-existence of the opposite sign. Second, a co-existence matrix shall be established that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometric point. Additionally, such co-existence that may also explain and answer a normalising that is , “neutral” being attracted to “neutral”, phenomenon of the gravity process.
Definitions and axiomatic information:
Before any discussion can meaningfully continue several contextual definitions must be accepted. A “R³ real coordinate space-energy matrix'' shall be defined as an Euclidean volume of space. Within this matrix is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values, and/or elements.
Finally let i = a mono pole positive polarity 1.60217733(49)E-19 C and let j = a mono pole negative polarity equal to 1.6021765 × 10−19 coulomb
Queries
As defined, is the following possible?
i ∈ [a]
Could i exist individually?
Would all the individual points of i be repulsive to all other points of i?
Would i be in an automatic state of expansion?
As defined, is the following possible?
j ∈ [a]
Could j exist individually?
Would all the individual points of j be repulsive to all other points of j?
Would j be in an automatic state of expansion?
I propose that both i and j could not exist as a thing with distinct and independent existence. By the laws of Physics and Coulomb's laws, it is quite clear that all individual points of i would be repulsive to all individual points of i, all individual points of j would be repulsive to all individual points of j. In a state of individual existence, both i and j would most certainly be in an immediate state of expansion.
to be continued.......
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 13:46:48
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2018 19:31:44
It's not that I have a learning disorder.Now I am sure you are just trolling, go find somebody else speak too, you can go be bored elsewhere.define the space to have an inner arrayYou will need to explain that.I have given science the information,You have given nothing but nonsense.neutral will always be attracted to neutral.And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.
The problem is your persistent refusal to explain what you are using words to mean.
If you stuck to the conventional uses of the words, you wouldn't need to explain them but you keep making up more dross with every post.
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 20:28:26
And comments on the latest edited post?It's not that I have a learning disorder.Now I am sure you are just trolling, go find somebody else speak too, you can go be bored elsewhere.define the space to have an inner arrayYou will need to explain that.I have given science the information,You have given nothing but nonsense.neutral will always be attracted to neutral.And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.
The problem is your persistent refusal to explain what you are using words to mean.
If you stuck to the conventional uses of the words, you wouldn't need to explain them but you keep making up more dross with every post.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2018 22:01:36
And comments on the latest edited post?None of what you have posted since I first wrote that makes much sense.
All you seem to be able to do is throw in insults and more buzzwords.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 00:40:39
You are really going to claim that you did not understand my last theory post edit ?And comments on the latest edited post?None of what you have posted since I first wrote that makes much sense.
All you seem to be able to do is throw in insults and more buzzwords.
Would you like me to explain with three individual n-spheres instead? or even a n-cube?
A n-dimensional manifold that can be embedded in Euclidean (n + 1)-space.
Can two opposite polarity, equal dimension n-spheres occupy the same Euclidean space?
Post by: alancalverd on 21/02/2018 08:49:20
I regularly cross swords with BC, but he is always honest.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 13:46:49
nomenclatureI tell you what, forget everything I wrote and concentrate on this one sentence.
Neutral is attracted to neutral..
Now which part do you not understand?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 15:42:16
Stay tuned.....The paper update and edit will be available soon.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 19:45:17
Neutral is attracted to neutral..I don't understand why this is worth posting many years after it was already established.
Now which part do you not understand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force
I also don't understand what the connection is between the pages of dross you posted, and a real thing.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 19:51:13
First, your link is nothing like my notion. Second, the real thing is atoms ,Neutral is attracted to neutral..I don't understand why this is worth posting many years after it was already established.
Now which part do you not understand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force
I also don't understand what the connection is between the pages of dross you posted, and a real thing.
What is a N-field particle?
An N-field particle is when two individual opposite polarity fields simulataneously combine, at the same geometric point, to form a single neutral field particle, that has quantum physicality due to the mechanics involved.
What is a n-field?
A n-field is a neutral field expanding isotropic from the N-field particle, inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.
There you go.
Post by: alancalverd on 21/02/2018 20:05:11
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 20:08:50
An N-field particle is when two individual opposite polarity fields simulataneously combine, at the same geometric point, to form a single neutral field particle, that has quantum physicality due to the mechanics involved.
Word salad.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 20:10:38
Methinks the lad hath discovered gravitation.It could be, but he keeps wittering on about polarity and that doesn't sit well with gravity (which is always attractive).
It hardly matters- there are at least two mechanisms that are well defined which model the way in which neutral things attract eachother. so it's not as if he's adding anything.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 20:34:48
Gravity is attractive and the repulsion involved is the physicality of objects, the likewise pushes back.Methinks the lad hath discovered gravitation.It could be, but he keeps wittering on about polarity and that doesn't sit well with gravity (which is always attractive).
It hardly matters- there are at least two mechanisms that are well defined which model the way in which neutral things attract eachother. so it's not as if he's adding anything.
Imagine a line that was a monopole
........................................................
Try to squeeze this line what happens?
It pushes back
force vectors
←→
F F
Mr Newtons apple fell to the ground because the negative atomic charge and positive atomic charge of the apple are attracted to their opposites in the ground.
The reason the apple does not fall through the ground is because the negative atomic charge and the positive atomic charge of the ground repulses the likewise atomic charge of the apple..
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 20:38:10
Methinks the lad hath discovered gravitation.Thanks Alan, but I consider what the forums have taught me over the years is what has, maybe discovered gravity, I consider everyone deserves a pat on the back.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 21:03:31
so it's not as if he's adding anything.It adds an answer to what gravity is, regardless of any other model , my model describes gravity . Not to mention the rudiment of energy for any given system, I have not even gone into the n-field yet of discussed n-wave or perturbations of the N-field and n-field being photons.
There is much to discuss , time does not wait for anybody.
Give me some credit MR C, for an amateur , not a bad result and conclusion in only several years of learning.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 21:45:19
A Neutral object will attract both a negative charge and a positive charge. All objects have the properties have a negative and positive atomic charge. The properties equate to neutral, so simply neutral is attracted to neutral and that is the mechanics of gravity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 21:47:34
the repulsion involved is the physicality of objects, the likewise pushes back.More word salad
Imagine a line that was a monopoleMake up your mind,
Monopoles are points, so they are not lines.
and so on...
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 21:51:35
I though mono-pole described a single polarity with no mention of dimension?the repulsion involved is the physicality of objects, the likewise pushes back.More word saladImagine a line that was a monopoleMake up your mind,
Monopoles are points, so they are not lines.
and so on...
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 21:55:09
You would equate a value of N wouldn't you?
If we give the individual mono-poles elements a value of i and j , i + j = N ?
Any other elements of i or j in the R³ space would be automatically attracted to this geometric point would they not?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 22:02:33
You would equate a value of N wouldn't you?What the F*** is N?
2 opposite mono-poles occupying the same geometric point?No.
Stop trying to do magic.
You also forgot to say what i and j are.
Why don't you try reading stuff before you post it, and asking yourself "have I actually defined all the terms I'm using here?"
Because, when you don't define them you are posting nonsense.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 22:08:27
N is obviously neutral Mr C, you have been discussing this long enough now too know the N-field is a neutral field.You would equate a value of N wouldn't you?What the F*** is N?2 opposite mono-poles occupying the same geometric point?No.
Stop trying to do magic.
You also forgot to say what i and j are.
Why don't you try reading stuff before you post it, and asking yourself "have I actually defined all the terms I'm using here?"
Because, when you don't define them you are posting nonsense.
I already defined i and j to be opposite mono poles. I guessed you missed that because I put
If we give the individual mono-poles elements a value of i and j , i + j = N ?
Instead of
If we give the individual opposite mono-poles elements a value of i and j , i + j = N ?
No magic , just physics.
e- = i
+1e = j
That simple Mr C
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 22:13:33
Any other elements of i or j in the R³ space would be automatically attracted to this geometric point i,j.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 22:21:55
If we give the individual mono-poles elements a value ofAre you taking the piss?
This "value": is it age, cost, charge, mass, shoe size?
e- = i
+1e = j
Now, all you need to do is define e (because I doubt you mean 2.7...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)
It hardly matters.
i + j = Nand
e- = i
+1e = j
So i+j = e-e which is zero- whatever e might be
So N is always zero.
Which might tell us something except you ever explained what N was.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 22:28:46
This "value": is it age, cost, charge, mass, shoe size?The value is a dimension and existence Mr C.
-e is the sign for the electron Mr C,
+1e is the sign for the proton Mr C.
N is electrically neutral Mr C, it means you measure 0 charge , but you can still measure the force and it equates to G.
p.s it is (e-) + (+1e) = 0 =N
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 00:38:50
A proposal for consideration of a N-field quantum theory.
S.P. Leese, ( Approximately 10 years of experience on science forums)
Spring 2018
Abstract:
This paper proposes a theory of events in a R³ real coordinate space that may describe the primary source of energy for a given system. First will be shown is that the formation of energy is a two part construct , with either part of the processing , the mechanics failing to retain form without the co-existence of the counter part. Second, a co-existence shall be established that is governed by simultaneous events at the same geometric point of the R³ coordinate space. Additionally, such co-existence that may also explain and answer a normalising that is , “neutral” being attracted to “neutral”, phenomenon of the gravity process.
Definitions and axiomatic information:
Before any discussion can meaningfully continue several contextual definitions must be accepted. First : the R³ real coordinate space we shall define (a).
Second : Within (a) is a volume of geometric positional points.
Third : Each point having a value of 0 dimensions.
Forth: Each point having the abilty to change in value at any random time.
Finally : Let us also define that the electron (e-) = i and the Proton (+1e) = j .
Query 1
As defined, is the following possible?
i ∈ (a)
Could i have an independent and distinct existence?
Would all the individual points of i be repulsive to all other points of i?
Would i be in an automatic state of expansion?
Query 2
As defined, is the following possible?
j ∈ (a)
Could j have an independent and distinct existence?
Would all the individual points of j be repulsive to all other points of j?
Would j be in an automatic state of expansion?
Query 3
As defined, is the following possible?
i,j ∈ (a)
Could i and j exist as a co-efficient?
Will i ''hold'' j in situate position?
Will j ''hold'' i in situate position?
Will i or j be in a state of expansion?
Propose:Query 1
• i could not have an independent and distinct existence
• Utilising Coulomb's law, all points of i would be repulsive to all other points of i. .
• Utilising Coulomb's law, i would be in an immediate state of expansion
Propose: Query 2
• j could not have an independent and distinct existence
• Utilising Coulomb's law, all points of j would be repulsive to all other points of j.
• Utilising Coulomb's law, j would be in an immediate state of expansion .
Propose:Query 3
• i and j co-exist such that i sustains j, and j sustains i.
• utilising Coulomb’s Law, i and j occupy a single geometric location.
• An expansion would be evident to accommodate a single N-field element.
Post by: Colin2B on 22/02/2018 12:15:45
As defined, is the following possible?This is possible if your definition of a includes some points being electrons
i ∈ (a)
Currently all you have said is:
Second : Within (a) is a volume of geometric positional points.
Third : Each point having a value of 0 dimensions.
To me, geometric positional points means coordinates, which would automatically have 0 dimensions.
Could i have an independent and distinct existence?That depends on the properties of i.
Lets consider 4 ∈ {2, 4, 6, 8}
Clearly 4 exists as an item in it’s own right and isn’t limited to this particular set. Obviously an electron can exist outside of a defined space eg a box (set) ;), but if you are asking if an electron can exist outside spacetime, different question.
Would all the individual points of i be repulsive to all other points of i?If all the points were electrons then yes
Would i be in an automatic state of expansion?
Why would an individual i expand?
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 12:22:17
Why would an individual i expand?An individual i has dimensions, therefore has more than one point.
Would all the individual points of i be repulsive to all other points of i?
Quote
If all the points were electrons then yes
Quite clearly all points of i would be electron points of the electron, so quite clearly all the points would repulse causing immediate expansion of the points.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 12:25:23
but if you are asking if an electron can exist outside spacetime, different question.Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 12:58:35
model i.jpg (34.63 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3077 times)This expansion I will propose in more detail my next paper , where I add N-waves and n-waves.
Post by: Colin2B on 22/02/2018 13:46:26
Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.You need to caveat this statement with “in the N Field new theory an electron cannot exist outside the atom.
The reason is that in current physics the electron has been observed outside the atom.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 13:56:54
The reason is that in current physics the electron has been observed outside the atom.Ok, hmmmm, a momentary pause in theory and questions arise.
please define a mono-pole?
An electron would be a mono-pole or a volume of mono-poles?
Did ''you'' detect a mono-pole or mono-poles?
Or did you detect a n-wave? (which is an annihilated electron)
p.s Please provide a link that shows an electrons independent existence outside of the atom!
added- Just to define, a charge mono-pole.
Quite clearly a charge mono-pole volume would self annihilate by it's own mechanism of likewise force , turning the ''manifestation'' into wave energy , that ''dispersed'' inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
If it does not, then there is something wrong with Coulombs law and it would be contradictory to the law of likewise polarity repulses.
All points of an electron R³ space, would be repulsive to all other points, making the possibility of a sustained volume, an impossibility.
Post by: alancalverd on 22/02/2018 14:21:07
but if you are asking if an electron can exist outside spacetime, different question.Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.
Bad idea. You are unlikely to arrive at a truth if you begin with a lie.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 14:32:25
Please provide a link for the electrons independent existence outside of the atom? I cannot find one.but if you are asking if an electron can exist outside spacetime, different question.Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.
Bad idea. You are unlikely to arrive at a truth if you begin with a lie.
I am not lieing either, the physics tells us what is what, I do not make up the physics.
The simple question is , could you place a mono-pole next to a likewise mono-pole without it automatically displacing when you let go?
The answer no, so how can you have an independent electron volume externally of the atom?
Added - Unless you was to claim that electron points in our R³ space have opposite signs?
In which I would ask for some sort of proofs of a Lepton.
If that were the case , then there could not be motion, the universe would be still because everything would be ''solid'' like and all would be repulsive.
Added - no, a big no, on the basis of a Lepton all electrons would be attracted to all electrons because my N-field theory would also work if I based it solely on the Lepton.
That is not evident, electrons repulse electrons so can not be i + j because they have no gravity.
Conclusion, no lepton, back to theory
propose
A lepton would have gravity if it had two opposite signs and attract other Leptons
evidence
Repulsive force of likewise sets of points , that may suggest an impossibility of a Lepton having opposite signs of points.
added- Let us look at two sets of leptons, (a) and (b) , each set is made up of elements i and j .
Now let us add the force vectors
(a)→←(b)
a is attracted to b and repulsed when the r=0.
So quite clearly (a) cannot have both i + j
because adding the force vectors to Leptons
(a)←→(b)
a is repulsed by b and vice versus b is repulsed by a, quite clearly there is no gravity that should be there if the Lepton model was anywhere near accurate.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 15:34:02
Quote
The antiparticle of the electron is called the positron; it is identical to the electron except that it carries electrical and other charges of the opposite sign. When an electron collides with a positron, both particles can be totally annihilated, producing gamma ray photons.
The positron would pass right through the electron because there would be no repulsive force from any point of each ''binary'' set.
What do we call a set that is made up of an individual element?
Propose
When a Cation collides with an anion, E=mc² and both particles can be totally annihilated, producing n-wave photons
inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source A proposal that n-wave photons are perturbations in the n-field that cause the linearity of the n-field to wave.
For those who do not understand, have a friend hold one end of piece of string, you hold the other end and pull it tight, simply ''twang'' the string and watch the wave of the linearity.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 16:07:21
A simpleton walks into a bar and ask's the bar tender a question about a singleton.
How could the contents in that glass exist if the contents were all likewise singletons ? {0}
Because all a ∈ {a}
Because a set such as {{1, 2, 3}} 1=2=3
Because
Quote
In axiomatic set theory, the existence of singletons is a consequence of the axiom of pairing: for any set A, the axiom applied to A and A asserts the existence of {A, A}, which is the same as the singleton {A} (since it contains A, and no other set, as an element).
Quote
Axiomatic set theory[edit]
Elementary set theory can be studied informally and intuitively, and so can be taught in primary schools using Venn diagrams. The intuitive approach tacitly assumes that a set may be formed from the class of all objects satisfying any particular defining condition. This assumption gives rise to paradoxes, the simplest and best known of which are Russell's paradox and the Burali-Forti paradox. Axiomatic set theory was originally devised to rid set theory of such paradoxes.[5]
Quote
Many mathematical concepts can be defined precisely using only set theoretic concepts. For example, mathematical structures as diverse as graphs, manifolds, rings, and vector spaces can all be defined as sets satisfying various (axiomatic) properties. Equivalence and order relations are ubiquitous in mathematics, and the theory of mathematical relations can be described in set theory.
Set theory is also a promising foundational system for much of mathematics. Since the publication of the first volume of Principia Mathematica, it has been claimed that most or even all mathematical theorems can be derived using an aptly designed set of axioms for set theory, augmented with many definitions, using first or second order logic. For example, properties of the natural and real numbers can be derived within set theory, as each number system can be identified with a set of equivalence classes under a suitable equivalence relation whose field is some infinite set.
Set theory as a foundation for mathematical analysis, topology, abstract algebra, and discrete mathematics is likewise uncontroversial; mathematicians accept that (in principle) theorems in these areas can be derived from the relevant definitions and the axioms of set theory. Few full derivations of complex mathematical theorems from set theory have been formally verified, however, because such formal derivations are often much longer than the natural language proofs mathematicians commonly present. One verification project, Metamath, includes human-written, computer‐verified derivations of more than 12,000 theorems starting from ZFC set theory, first order logic and propositional logic.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 16:25:20
Maybe this question applies Universally , a bit like how can a chicken exist without an egg, and how can the egg exist without the chicken?
How can rain exist without water? How can ice exist without water?
How can anything exist without something else?
Post by: alancalverd on 22/02/2018 16:46:27
Please provide a link for the electrons independent existence outside of the atom? I cannot find one.You are looking at one right now. Or you would be if your computer had an oldfashioned CRT display. Maybe you have a valve radio, an old guitar amplifier, or a microwave cooker? Pop in to any hospital and look at their xray machines - free electrons whizzing around and crashing into things is how we generate x-rays. Or a factory with electron beam welding.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 16:55:54
How do I know I am not looking at anions?Please provide a link for the electrons independent existence outside of the atom? I cannot find one.You are looking at one right now. Or you would be if your computer had an oldfashioned CRT display. Maybe you have a valve radio, an old guitar amplifier, or a microwave cooker? Pop in to any hospital and look at their xray machines - free electrons whizzing around and crashing into things is how we generate x-rays. Or a factory with electron beam welding.
How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2018 19:20:39
Have you spent nine pages telling us that objects with the same number of positive and negative charges have no overall charge?This "value": is it age, cost, charge, mass, shoe size?The value is a dimension and existence Mr C.
-e is the sign for the electron Mr C,
+1e is the sign for the proton Mr C.
N is electrically neutral Mr C, it means you measure 0 charge , but you can still measure the force and it equates to G.
p.s it is (e-) + (+1e) = 0 =N
Was there anyone who didn't already know that?
Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.
The correct answer is yes.
And, in spite of what Colin2B says, there is not scientific theory which lets you get away from that, because it's aan empirically observed fact.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2018 19:25:07
How do I know I am not looking at anions?Because the mass to charge ratio is wrong.
How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?It's kind of meaningless to base something on not seeing the annihilation of things when there's no reason to suppose they would be annihilated.
I am not lieing either, the physics tells us what is what,
Physics tells us about free electrons in a number of circumstances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube
And, as usual, your refusal to start by learning stuff makes you look silly.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 20:28:43
Well regardless of a few hiccups in my N-field theory, it does not change the maybe fact, that I have answered what the gravity mechanism is.How do I know I am not looking at anions?Because the mass to charge ratio is wrong.How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?It's kind of meaningless to base something on not seeing the annihilation of things when there's no reason to suppose they would be annihilated.I am not lieing either, the physics tells us what is what,
Physics tells us about free electrons in a number of circumstances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube
And, as usual, your refusal to start by learning stuff makes you look silly.
That theory is short and sweet
Gravity mechanism
S.P.Leese
Spring 2018
Abstract - This paper explains gravity mechanism
Propose - Neutral is attracted to Neutral
Citation - Coulombs law
a+b ∈ {n}
a is attracted to b
b is attracted to a
therefore a+b is attracted to a+b
The end....
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 20:31:26
When a Cation collides with an anion, E=mc² and both particles can be totally annihilated, producing n-wave photons
If that was true, then table salt would explode.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 20:33:48
I do not think we could collide table salt at c.When a Cation collides with an anion, E=mc² and both particles can be totally annihilated, producing n-wave photons
If that was true, then table salt would explode.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 20:36:15
I do not think we could collide table salt at c.
You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 20:39:37
Of course mass can not travel at c, but mass can travel at 0.5c, two objects colliding at 0.5c is a ''crash'' at c. F²I do not think we could collide table salt at c.
You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 20:42:22
I would say, "you can't add velocities linearly at relativistic speeds", but I'm sure you'd find some way to ignore it, as usual.Of course mass can not travel at c, but mass can travel at 0.5c, two objects colliding at 0.5c is a ''crash'' at c. F²I do not think we could collide table salt at c.
You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 20:46:24
If you can add speeds together in a car crash to have double the force, then obviously travelling faster does not change this.I would say, "you can't add velocities linearly at relativistic speeds", but I'm sure you'd find some way to ignore it, as usual.Of course mass can not travel at c, but mass can travel at 0.5c, two objects colliding at 0.5c is a ''crash'' at c. F²I do not think we could collide table salt at c.
You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.
Also if mass was to become energy, then the energy could travel at c.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 20:48:10
If you can add speeds together in a car crash to have double the force, then obviously travelling faster does not change this.Yep, just as I predicted.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 20:50:09
Explain why you think this simple piece of physics would alter any travelling faster?If you can add speeds together in a car crash to have double the force, then obviously travelling faster does not change this.Yep, just as I predicted.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 20:53:59
Explain why you think this simple piece of physics would alter any travelling faster?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Composition_of_velocities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Composition_of_velocities)
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 20:58:49
I can understand that, however I stated the relative speeds so I know from my stated speeds of 0.5c and 0.5c that it would be double the force.Explain why you think this simple piece of physics would alter any travelling faster?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Composition_of_velocities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Composition_of_velocities)
I did not state 0.5c and 0.75c did I?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 21:08:08
I can understand that, however I stated the relative speeds so I know from my stated speeds of 0.5c and 0.5c that is would be double the force.
I did not state 0.5c and 0.75c did I?
Even without taking relativity into consideration, you don't get double the force by colliding two objects travelling at the same speed. See what Mythbusters demonstrated about this:
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 21:19:23
OK, I have watched your video link, the test is flawed and they calculated incorrectly.I can understand that, however I stated the relative speeds so I know from my stated speeds of 0.5c and 0.5c that is would be double the force.
I did not state 0.5c and 0.75c did I?
Even without taking relativity into consideration, you don't get double the force by colliding two objects travelling at the same speed. See what Mythbusters demonstrated about this:
At the end it is 1x + 1x = 2x, They need to only have one piece of clay in the final test on one arm only.
They are not calculating F / 2
If two cars are travelling at 50 mph head on, neither car knows who is moving, either car measure the other car travelling at 100 mph.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 21:24:33
OK, I have watched your video link, the test is flawed and they calculated incorrectly.
At the end it is 1x + 1x = 2x, They need to only have one piece of clay in the final test on one arm only.
They are not calculating F / 2
I'm not sure I understand the situation you are describing. You are talking about two particles moving at the same speed (relative to an outside observer) and then colliding head-on, right? If so, the two pendulum approach is exactly the same as that. The one pendulum method would be analogous to a single particle hitting a wall.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 21:34:03
Because they used two pieces of clay at the end, the squash of the clays was shared between the two clays, both of the squashes added together would equal the 1 smash of more swing , they used a single clay for that ,OK, I have watched your video link, the test is flawed and they calculated incorrectly.
At the end it is 1x + 1x = 2x, They need to only have one piece of clay in the final test on one arm only.
They are not calculating F / 2
I'm not sure I understand the situation you are describing. You are talking about two particles moving at the same speed (relative to an outside observer) and then colliding head-on, right? If so, the two pendulum approach is exactly the same as that. The one pendulum method would be analogous to a single particle hitting a wall.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 21:38:30
Because they used two pieces of clay at the end, the squash of the clays was shared between the two clays, both of the squashes added together would equal the 1 smash of more swing , they used a single clay for that ,
I suppose then the question is, "what force are you measuring?" Are you talking about the force experienced by a hypothetical target right in the middle of the collision, or the force experienced by each particle? Another reason you can't add force up linearly like that is because doubling the speed of an object doesn't double its kinetic energy, it actually quadruples it (at subrelativistic speeds). The kinetic energy equation is exponential, not linear.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 21:43:04
I am measuring the force of impact by the observation.Because they used two pieces of clay at the end, the squash of the clays was shared between the two clays, both of the squashes added together would equal the 1 smash of more swing , they used a single clay for that ,
I suppose then the question is, "what force are you measuring?" Are you talking about the force experienced by a hypothetical target right in the middle of the collision, or the force experienced by each particle? Another reason you can't add force up linearly like that is because doubling the speed of an object doesn't double its kinetic energy, it actually quadruples it. The kinetic energy equation is exponential, not linear.
If the clay compresses example 1cm from 1x and 2cm from 2x against the metal block
Then when both arms are dropped with the clay on each arm, from 1x, each clay is compressed 1cm , a total of 2cm
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 21:51:58
I am measuring the force of impact by the observation.
If the clay compresses example 1cm from 1x and 2cm from 2x against the metal block
Then when both arms are dropped with the clay on each arm, from 1x, each clay is compressed 1cm , a total of 2cm
I'm doubtful that the 2x speed pendulum compressed the clay exactly twice as much as the 1x speed pendulum, considering that the pendulum would have had four times as much kinetic energy when moving twice as fast. Clay doesn't compress linearly as force increases, so it's not a great way to get an exact measurement unless you know exactly how it behaves under compression.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 21:54:23
True, it is not an ideal test , the steel block having more density etc. I would not be sure about kinetic energy, I do not think that is what is meant to be exact.I am measuring the force of impact by the observation.
If the clay compresses example 1cm from 1x and 2cm from 2x against the metal block
Then when both arms are dropped with the clay on each arm, from 1x, each clay is compressed 1cm , a total of 2cm
I'm doubtful that the 2x speed pendulum compressed the clay exactly twice as much as the 1x speed pendulum, considering that the pendulum would have had four times as much kinetic energy when moving twice as fast. Clay doesn't compress linearly as force increases, so it's not a great way to get an exact measurement unless you know exactly how it behaves under compression.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 21:58:51
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 22:09:30
For the sake of continued consideration, this is what happened when the Mythbusters tested it with actual cars:The results I expected to see. There is no contradiction , there is twice the damage.
100mph (F) / 2 = damage
The fans are wrong not right.
Putting it a different way , you see one car hit the wall at 50 mph, you see one car of damage
You see two cars head on at 50 mph, you see twice the damage of the 1 car because there is two cars with equal damage tot he one car,
2 is not equal to 1
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 22:11:27
For the sake of continued consideration, this is what happened when the Mythbusters tested it with actual cars:The results I expected to see. There is no contradiction , there is twice the damage.
100mph (F) / 2 = damage
The fans are wrong not right.
Which is still less than that of a crash into a wall at 100 mph, which would be four times the damage (since it's four times the kinetic energy, not two times).
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 22:15:10
Lol I dont think you understand, the car crashing into the wall's damage at 100 mph is the same as the two cars crashing at 50 mph added together.For the sake of continued consideration, this is what happened when the Mythbusters tested it with actual cars:The results I expected to see. There is no contradiction , there is twice the damage.
100mph (F) / 2 = damage
The fans are wrong not right.
Which is still less than that of a crash into a wall at 100 mph, which would be four times the damage (since it's four times the kinetic energy, not two times).
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 22:20:56
A) under 100 lb pressure
B) under 50 lb pressure
c) under 50 lb pressure
b+c = a
c ≠ a
b ≠ a
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 22:34:36
Lol I dont think you understand, the car crashing into the wall's damage at 100 mph is the same as the two cars crashing at 50 mph added together.You realize that you can't say, "it's twice as short now therefore it experienced twice the force", right? The more a material is compressed, the more it resists compression and the harder it becomes to compress it further. It's not linear. Doubling the force equals less than double the compression.
Quote
I will do the math for you using 3 springs
A) under 100 lb pressure
B) under 50 lb pressure
c) under 50 lb pressure
b+c = a
That's true, but impact force is not linear. The car travelling at 100 miles per hour has four times the impact force as either of the cars travelling at 50 miles per hour. Here is how you do the actual math for a car crash: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/impact-force-d_1780.html (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/impact-force-d_1780.html)
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 22:40:47
You realize that you can't say, "it's twice as short now therefore it experienced twice the force", right?I was not been exact, just general chit chat. I understand density plays a role. In general I was considering an equality of substances where I presume it the compression of material would be equal .
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 22:42:55
That's true, but impact force is not linear. The car travelling at 100 miles per hour has four times the impact force as either of the cars travelling at 50 miles per hour. Here is how you do the actual math for a car crash: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/impact-force-d_1780.htmlWhy 4 times the force, that does not make much sense unless the momentum adds force? second thought I think I see your point but I also think there is a equality in there somewhere.
Meaning two identical masses would have the same qualities so equally compress ?
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 22:55:52
F=mp² looks good lol.
Shouldn't 1/2 mv² be something different than v, v being speed and direction, how do you square speed and direction?
Post by: Colin2B on 22/02/2018 23:00:19
The correct answer is yes.I think you may have misunderstood what i said:
And, in spite of what Colin2B says, there is not scientific theory which lets you get away from that, because it's aan empirically observed fact.
You need to caveat this statement with “in the N Field new theory an electron cannot exist outside the atom.I didn’t say it was a scientific theory ;)
The reason is that in current physics the electron has been observed outside the atom.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 23:05:33
I didn’t say it was a scientific theoryShucks......
So let us discuss the independence of an electron, are you saying this electron has a volume?
added- I have the answer that allows my theory to continue.
For the purpose of discussion I ask for you to consider the following definition, an individual free electron is an electron shell with a hollow space nucleus. It's inability to complete its annihilation into a n-wave is because of the n-field enclosure it occupies. The likewise electron half of the n-field sufficiently enclosing the electron within itself allowing the electron to retain form.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 01:56:19
n-field electron.png (10.2 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3003 times)Does that answer the question of how a free electron can exist in a n-field?
For a general reference, consider an air bubble under water.
Post by: alancalverd on 23/02/2018 09:29:03
How do I know I am not looking at anions?
because there are no nuclei present in a vacuum.
Quote
How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?because the annihilation of a free electron produces a single photon of 511 keV, not a picture on a cathode ray tube.
This stuff is all in the textbooks - why not read one?
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 13:24:19
I like interactive learning Alan, I do not like trying to remove any ambiguity in meanings from a book. I like to hear other peoples thoughts and understanding on the subject rather than trying to decipher a book.How do I know I am not looking at anions?
because there are no nuclei present in a vacuum.QuoteHow do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?because the annihilation of a free electron produces a single photon of 511 keV, not a picture on a cathode ray tube.
This stuff is all in the textbooks - why not read one?
Anyway I believe my theory has just allowed for the existence of the electron within a n-field, I stand strong in that an electron could not exist outside of a n-field.
n-field bottling of the electron stops the electrons natural self annihilation.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 13:36:26
Therefore another answer is needed that allows the existence of the electron within the n-field. After some deliberation in my mind, I propose the n-field bottles the electron similar to but not exact like magnetic bottling used in Plasma fusion physics.
F1b>F1a
where set {a} and a of set {b} have the same singleton element values and likewise force.
Force vector
←n-field →← electron→←n-field→
Obviously the containment of {a} by {b} is isotropic.
a ∈ {a}
a,b ∈ {b}
In the summation set, we can show ∑{{,b,{a},b,}}
In the form of an array we can show
bbb
bab
bbb
I would like you to consider this process under the conceptual definition of Quantum field physicality ( Q.F.P)
Post by: alancalverd on 23/02/2018 14:33:59
Quote
A lepton is an elementary, half-integer spin particle that does not undergo strong interactions. Two main classes of leptons exist: charged leptons, and neutral leptons. Charged leptons can combine with other particles to form various composite particles such as atoms and positronium, while neutrinos rarely interact with anything, and are consequently rarely observed. The best known of all leptons is the electron.My italics.
If you don't like the English language, please take your arguments to another board. On this planet, most scientific discussion is carried out in English using common definitions that scientists learn at school.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 15:15:46
From Wikipedia (since you don't like books)I mentioned nothing of Wiki and the general explanations and definitions. I said books that are generally one persons thoughts and sentence structure.QuoteA lepton is an elementary, half-integer spin particle that does not undergo strong interactions. Two main classes of leptons exist: charged leptons, and neutral leptons. Charged leptons can combine with other particles to form various composite particles such as atoms and positronium, while neutrinos rarely interact with anything, and are consequently rarely observed. The best known of all leptons is the electron.My italics.
If you don't like the English language, please take your arguments to another board. On this planet, most scientific discussion is carried out in English using common definitions that scientists learn at school.
Anyway , you are presenting a difficulty with science defence. Therefore I will provide a counter argument that regains the premise of my theory.
I ask you how many different types of particles can occupy and originate from a 0 point space?
Because when all these different singleton particles start to get mentioned, I start thinking it becomes a bit far fetched.
Quite obviously there is only so much that can occupy a fractional 0, R³ space.
In simplicity , a point particle cannot be made of several other different points.
{0} A singleton is really small. There is only more space if it expands. {0} created the first micro bang that created the universe.
In the beginning there was nothing observable, but this does not insinuate there was no dimensions of the non-observable. At any given random point of this vast of nothingness, static charge begins to manifest ,self annihilation into a n-wave permeating through nothing. Self annihilation because the points were singletons and likewise in polarity.
Then at one given random point , simultaneously manifests of opposite poles create the very first N-field particle.
Of course all the already created n-field wave energy of opposite poles, came rushing in to that spot and this created a rather big bang.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 15:56:14
This makes a star within a n-field. The expansion of the star is contained by the n-field's Q.F.P
added- I got it
{0} + {0} = {1}
set a + b = C =1
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 16:24:19
Post by: alancalverd on 23/02/2018 16:39:23
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 16:47:13
You may call this CMBR. The rest of us call it garbage.I would also call it garbage if the physics did not work for the notion.
Lets us start with the basic question,
Would all a and b in a volume of R³ space k be attracted to a+b in the same volume of R³ space k?
singleton mono-pole e- = {a}
singleton mono-pole +1e = {b}
Binary system {{a + b}}
(we will soon see what garbage it isn't hey).
added- well we know the answer is yes because I can call for Coulomb to the ''dock''.
So therefore all {{a+b}} is attracted to all {{a+b}}
all {a} is attracted to {{a+b}}
all {b} is attracted to {{a+b}}
Explaining why annihilation n-waves are drawn to mass.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2018 18:30:56
because the annihilation of a free electron produces a single photon of 511 keV,You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed for an electron to be annihilated.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 22:20:04
Or I could use google like normalbecause the annihilation of a free electron produces a single photon of 511 keV,You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed for an electron to be annihilated.
2.
PHYSICS
the conversion of matter into energy, especially the mutual conversion of a particle and an antiparticle into electromagnetic radiation.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 00:04:36
You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 00:24:30
No, I only need to look at physics and the physics involved. I noticed you ignored any questions as per normal.You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 11:28:04
If your questions are based on a total misunderstanding of science then, at best they are not worth answering. In many cases there will be no answer.No, I only need to look at physics and the physics involved. I noticed you ignored any questions as per normal.You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed
Have you found out what the circumstances are in which electrons are annihilated?
And that is a matter of physics, not matter how hard you try to ignore it.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 14:43:16
In my version I have told you why electrons are annihilated, because the physics says so.If your questions are based on a total misunderstanding of science then, at best they are not worth answering. In many cases there will be no answer.No, I only need to look at physics and the physics involved. I noticed you ignored any questions as per normal.You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed
Have you found out what the circumstances are in which electrons are annihilated?
And that is a matter of physics, not matter how hard you try to ignore it.
Why what version do you think is other than my version? I suppose you are gong to mention anti-pairs which is quite humorous really.
How many elements do you think can fit in a single point?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 14:46:53
They only do that if they interact with a positron.
That's what the physics tells you.
But positrons are rare, so annihilation doesn't usually happen.
So, back to your earlier mistake, do you now realise that electrons do exist outside of atoms?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 14:50:56
Electrons are not generally annihilated.Electrons can exist within a n-field, they cannot exist outside the n-field. A positron cannot destroy an electron, an electron would have no Q.F.P against a positron. The positron would pass though the electron, the electron is a mono-pole, anyone saying it isn't is a blatant lier.
They only do that if they interact with a positron.
That's what the physics tells you.
But positrons are rare, so annihilation doesn't usually happen.
So, back to your earlier mistake, do you now realise that electrons do exist outside of atoms?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 14:57:03
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 15:02:35
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 15:05:54
Are my questions I present to you Mr C, too hard for you to answer?
If an atom = (1+1=2) then 0.5 of an atom = 1,
0.5 of an atom does not equate to 0.5+0.5 = 1
An electron is a whole , it is not fractions making 1.
If an electron were 0.5+0.5 = 1, then it would attract other electrons. Not the case.
I explain the electrons existence within the n-field as F2→>←F1
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 15:26:33
ele.jpg (28.66 kB . 731x461 - viewed 2912 times)That would be called a containment field.
b→←b→←b
p.s Yes that will fix your Plasma problem if you can create F(a,b)>F(a,b)
added- Understand as with Newtons third law, space pushes back. The likewise force of the n-fields pushing back all likewise fields. Q.F.P
accept the conceptual definition of Q.F.P (quantum field physicality). Observed with magnets etc, proof.
The invisible ''rod'' between the magnets allowing me to push the other magnet without them touching. hence Q.F.P
Consider this, I am a stone-age man giving you some tools to use, you are the blacksmith who can make those tools better.
I do not 'see' the magnets in the video, I ''see'' two dense fields emitting less dense fields, I ''see'' these less dense fields being squashed when I push the magnet. I neither 'see'' the magnetism, I only 'see' polarity. The polarity being the common thing of all fields.
U.F.T = polarities
T.O.E = polarities
Q.F.P = polarities
Gravity = polarities
fields = polarities
time = polariities
everything = polarities
I know more than I thought I knew, impressed myself :D
Post by: alancalverd on 24/02/2018 16:33:07
But you clearly live in a different universe where gravity is not unipolar and any old nonsense passes as logic. Trumpton, perhaps?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 16:38:09
Alas, drivel is drivel whether presented as meaningless equations or unlabelled diagrams.Gravity is a binary Alan, a+b=g
But you clearly live in a different universe where gravity is not unipolar and any old nonsense passes as logic. Trumpton, perhaps?
The ground pushes back, that is the repulsion involved. There is no mythology in my notion, it is using all the physical facts without any make believe.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 16:48:47
1) Pick up any object that is near you
2) ask yourself the following questions
a) is the atomic negative polarity of this object attracted to all the positive atomic polarity of objects around it?
b) is the atomic positive polarity of this object attracted to all the negative atomic polarity of objects around it?
3) drop the object providing it is not breakable
4) does the ground repulse the object and push back? of course it does
5) Does a+b = g ? of course it does because of both yes answers of questions a and b.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 17:00:13
See if you can understand this:
The Earth maybe in a state of expansion, but the earth's field emitted pushes back to create n-field pressure.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 17:09:56
neleastic.jpg (21.52 kB . 731x461 - viewed 2914 times)The Earths field is expanding, the earth does not pull back like it use too, the poor poor moon.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 17:13:47
A positron cannot destroy an electron,As I have said before, if your view doesn't agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.
Do you also insist an electron has opposite signs to retain formation?What do you think that means?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 17:18:08
What do you think that means?
After reading about the Lepton, I think that means that ''you'' think the electron has some sort of opposite elements that allow it's formation to exist. Making the electron a binary singleton instead of a singleton. However that would be wrong.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 17:20:36
As I have said before, if your view doesn't agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.By the laws of physics an electron v electron at high speed should annihilate an electron because wave E=mc²/2
which would equate to wave E = mc
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 17:51:27
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 18:18:33
After reading about the Lepton, I think that means that ''you'' think the electron has some sort of opposite elements that allow it's formation to exist. Making the electron a binary singleton instead of a singleton. However that would be wrong.You have tried to explain your gibberish with more gibberish.
By the laws of physics an electron v electron at high speed should annihilate an electron because wave E=mc²/2Ditto
which would equate to wave E = mc
Your idea of electrons disappearing doesn't work. It can't- because of charge conservation.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 18:27:30
Your idea of electrons disappearing doesn't work. It can't- because of charge conservation.Explain charge conservation? I will also look it up
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 18:30:47
Quote
In physics, charge conservation is the principle that electric charge can neither be created nor destroyed. The net quantity of electric charge, the amount of positive charge minus the amount of negative charge in the universe, is always conserved.
The above applies to within a n-field system. Any dispersed n-wave energy is regathered because of the inner product attractiveness properties.
Mathematical explained R³ ƒ(a, b) = a + b = G
The laws of physics suggest that an electron cannot retain form , be a inner product, without a binding or a pressured force.
Explain how a ''free'' electron can retain form ?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 18:40:48
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 19:21:16
Explain how a ''free'' electron can retain form ?I don't need to explain why your made up nonsense is wrong.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 19:47:17
You are the one claiming it is nonsense and wrong, therefore an explanation is required to justify your statement. Saying something is wrong without explanation is subjective and not very truthful.Explain how a ''free'' electron can retain form ?I don't need to explain why your made up nonsense is wrong.
Are you afraid that if you answer my questions truthfully it would re-enforce my notion?
I do not need you to re-enforce my notion, I already understand it is credible.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 20:39:57
Because ((-ε) + (+ε ) ) + ((+ε) + (-ε ) ) = 0 ε and is cumulative.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/02/2018 20:51:54
I do not need you to re-enforce my notion, I already understand it is credible.
Says the guy who once claimed to have a logical axiom proof that time dilation can't happen.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 20:57:27
Well, time dilation does not happen quite the way science think it happens, so technically I was correct. Time is not independent of the Caesium, the change of frequency is an internal change of the Caesium. Yes agreed by some affect of the energy in space. Nothing to do with any space-time though. No such thing.I do not need you to re-enforce my notion, I already understand it is credible.
Says the guy who once claimed to have a logical axiom proof that time dilation can't happen.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 21:03:46
For a start, the burden of proof goes the other way.You are the one claiming it is nonsense and wrong, therefore an explanation is required to justify your statement. Saying something is wrong without explanation is subjective and not very truthful.Explain how a ''free'' electron can retain form ?I don't need to explain why your made up nonsense is wrong.
Are you afraid that if you answer my questions truthfully it would re-enforce my notion?
I do not need you to re-enforce my notion, I already understand it is credible.
You are making stuff up so it falls to you to prove that it is right.
An explanation is not required when what I am doing is pointing out that your idea is inconsistent with observed fact.
I don't need to say why you are wrong; I just need to show that you are wrong.
And I have- for example, I have cited things that show that isolated electrons exist.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/02/2018 21:05:44
Well, time dilation does not happen quite the way science think it happens, so technically I was correct.
Yes, the consensus of the scientific community is wrong because some guy whose only science experience comes from talking on message boards said so. Someone who does not have a degree in physics, who does not have a job as a scientist and who has no means to conduct tests of his hypotheses clearly knows more than actual scientists do...
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 21:06:19
I have cited things that show that isolated electrons exist.
I have cited things that show why an isolated electron can exist in a n-field. I used Plasma bottling as an example.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 21:11:43
What I know is what ''actual scientists'' over the years have taught me. I am just simply putting methods to practise and making the most of what I learnt.Well, time dilation does not happen quite the way science think it happens, so technically I was correct.
Yes, the consensus of the scientific community is wrong because some guy whose only science experience comes from talking on message boards said so. Someone who does not have a degree in physics, who does not have a job as a scientist and who has no means to conduct tests of his hypotheses clearly knows more than actual scientists do...
I am a product of your own thinking. My science completes quantum mechanics, I am saying science is more than right, I am just finishing the details. How you put this is up to science, but I did not make the physics up , it is there on wiki in black and white to work out things. The physics in my notions work, such as time
ƒ:Δt {R³ k } = 0
ƒ:Δ R³ k = Δr
ƒ:Δr = v
ƒ:Δt ∝ Δ S
ƒ:ΔS ∝ Δt
The above math is exactly what science and members have told me.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 21:19:50
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 21:26:01
Without a + b , things cannot exist, not even time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 21:44:00
In the real world, electrons exist outside of plasma bottles.I have cited things that show that isolated electrons exist.
I have cited things that show why an isolated electron can exist in a n-field. I used Plasma bottling as an example.
Why do you keep making this sh1t up?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 22:13:18
Why do you keep making this sh1t up?
You are really not very good at understanding comparisons are you?
Spacial n-fields bottle single free electrons.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 04:33:20
I am saying science is more than right, I am just finishing the details.
Yet you reject many scientific findings, either because you don't understand them or because they contradict your hypotheses. So what you are actually saying is, "science is right so long as it agrees with me".
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 06:18:36
Reject?I am saying science is more than right, I am just finishing the details.
Yet you reject many scientific findings, either because you don't understand them or because they contradict your hypotheses. So what you are actually saying is, "science is right so long as it agrees with me".
I have understood relativity, defined time to a precise definition keeping inline with time dilation. I have described gravity based on present information.
I have strengthened science not weakened it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 10:31:25
Spacial n-fields bottle single free electrons.That's exactly the kind of made-up sh1t I meant.
I have understood relativity, defined time to a precise definition keeping inline with time dilation. I have described gravity based on present information.
Your so called "understanding" wasn't valid.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 15:04:37
Reject?
I have understood relativity, defined time to a precise definition keeping inline with time dilation. I have described gravity based on present information.
I have strengthened science not weakened it.
You have denied the existence of many subatomic particles. You have denied that protons are composed of quarks. You have denied that positrons and electrons annihilate each other. You have denied that Rayleigh scattering is what makes the sky blue. You have denied the way that basic orbital mechanics works.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 15:50:56
You have denied the way that basic orbital mechanics works.I have answered how the fabric of space and space-time works. As for the other you mentioned, my theory does not ''care'' about that , because my theory is a new theory and different than present set naive theory.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 17:25:21
I have answered how the fabric of space and space-time works.You have posted word salad.
As for the other you mentioned, my theory does not ''care'' about that , because my theory is a new theory and different than present set naive theory.
The current theory works.
Yours is different.
You might want to think about that for a minute or two.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 17:25:36
Spacial n-fields bottle single free electrons.Made up? You really have a poor ability to think about forces Mr C.
That's exactly the kind of made-up sh1t I meant.
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 06:18:36
Let us gain understanding and let us begin with a discussion of a singleton set {a}
and
all a ∈ {a}
Now a is all the same polarity, and {a} is the volume of a.
Now you agree this conceptual singleton, an inner product in a R³ space, would be in a state of expansion?
Calling to the ''dock'', Coulomb's law's.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 17:26:54
The current theory works.My theory is different, but my theory also works and shows some of your theory cannot work. That's the problem my friend.
Yours is different.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 17:39:28
Now ask yourself Mr C , what would stop the expansion of {a} to ∞<<<{a}>>>∞?
Would we not need
F1 ∝ F2?
Would we not need something pushing back?
Now quite clearly Mr C, an opposite pole could not push back, only a likewise pole could push back.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 17:43:35
I have answered how the fabric of space and space-time works. As for the other you mentioned, my theory does not ''care'' about that , because my theory is a new theory and different than present set naive theory.
It had better "care", because (as I have pointed out in other threads) there are subatomic particles which do not have a trace of electric charge yet they have mass. So any hypothesis that proposes that mass and gravity are caused by electric charge has to be wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 17:47:01
singleton setUntil 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.
My 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.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 17:49:37
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.I have answered how the fabric of space and space-time works. As for the other you mentioned, my theory does not ''care'' about that , because my theory is a new theory and different than present set naive theory.
It had better "care", because (as I have pointed out in other threads) there are subatomic particles which do not have a trace of electric charge yet they have mass. So any hypothesis that proposes that mass and gravity are caused by electric charge has to be wrong.
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 17:51:20
Dude you have a big problem with cold reading everything.singleton setUntil 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.My 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.
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).
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 17:55:06
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.
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?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 17:58:14
I am talking about the unification of field theory, the common factor being polarity, we only need to look at a and b.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.
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?
For the purpose of discussion you can imagine an electron if you like. It works for explanation purposes.
Changing it to suit
All e- ∈ {a}
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 17:58:57
Dude you have a big problem with cold reading everything.know about singleton sets.
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).
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?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 17:59:23
the common factor being polarity,Polarity of what?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:00:27
the 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.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 18:02:22
The 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.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:02:46
No I do not need to explain again, it is obvious what I am saying and you are just being really awkward.Dude you have a big problem with cold reading everything.know about singleton sets.
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).
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?
So to adjust for you
All e- ∈ {R³}
Can you work with that?
To contain the expansion
F1 ∝ F1 being likewise in polarity.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:04:02
Likewise polarities repulse , opposite polarities attract, they do not work differently although they may have different characteristics.The 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.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 18:08:32
Likewise 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.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:12:14
But yes it is, if you answer the questions, you might realise why it is true.Likewise 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.
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.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 18:15:41
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.
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 18:16:35
it is obvious what I am sayingNo.
You say things like this
The polarity of whatever, magnetic polarity, charge polarity, field polarity, polarity means the same thing in any instant.
which is wrong.
So it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.
I understand the strong nuclear force, it is a bit like a Chinese finger puzzle.LOL
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:17:13
My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.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.
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.
Is all a attracted to a,b
Is all b attracted to a,b
yes and yes , True and true
Is all a,b attracted to a,b
yes , true.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 18:19:13
My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.That's neither reasoning, nor data
Is all a attracted to a,b
Is all b attracted to a,b
yes and yes , True and true
Is all a,b attracted to a,b
yes , true.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:19:53
So it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.
So you don't understand but declare it nonsense?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:20:42
Are you denying Coulomb's laws?My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.That's neither reasoning, nor data
Is all a attracted to a,b
Is all b attracted to a,b
yes and yes , True and true
Is all a,b attracted to a,b
yes , true.
Are you denying opposite poles attract regardless of the ''material''?
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 18:22:09
Are you denying Coulomb's laws?My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.That's neither reasoning, nor data
Is all a attracted to a,b
Is all b attracted to a,b
yes and yes , True and true
Is all a,b attracted to a,b
yes , true.
Coulomb's law is for the electromagnetic force. I'm talking about gravity and the strong nuclear force.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:27:01
I know coulomb's law is for electromagnetic force , but it is the best one for describing polarity interaction.Are you denying Coulomb's laws?My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.That's neither reasoning, nor data
Is all a attracted to a,b
Is all b attracted to a,b
yes and yes , True and true
Is all a,b attracted to a,b
yes , true.
Coulomb's law is for the electromagnetic force. I'm talking about gravity and the strong nuclear force.
Why not answer the questions instead of being objective without answering the questions?
Pick up any object that is by you please.
Is the atomic negative polarity of that object attracted to the atomic positive polarity of the ground and near by objects.
A simple yes or no answer is needed.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:39:48
so therefore
a is attracted to a,b
b is attracted to a,b
and conclusion
a,b is attracted to a,b
added-
a can merge with b
b can merge with a
a cannot merge with a
b cannot merge with b
a,b has physicality relative to other a,b
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 19:09:31
NoSo it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.
So you don't understand but declare it nonsense?
I am saying that, if you don't explain it then it will make sense to nobody.
And that will mean it is nonsense.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 19:28:09
I have explained in several different ways already. OK, forget everything I have mentioned so far,NoSo it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.
So you don't understand but declare it nonsense?
I am saying that, if you don't explain it then it will make sense to nobody.
And that will mean it is nonsense.
Let us look at the Jack in a box, a spring compressed by the lid of the box.
Do you agree that for the Jack to remain in the box, F ∝ F of the lid?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 19:33:15
F ∝ F of the lid?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 19:36:40
What do you mean byI mean what it says, obviously F is force and obviously ∝ is proportional to. The force pushing down, has to be at least proportional to the force pushing up to keep the Jack in the box.F ∝ F of the lid?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 19:54:23
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 19:56:32
What do you mean byI mean what it says, obviously F is force and obviously ∝ is proportional to. The force pushing down, has to be at least proportional to the force pushing up to keep the Jack in the box.F ∝ F of the lid?
It is traditional to avoid confusion by using different letters for different things so
F is proportional to F
is a bit pointless.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 20:03:16
Ok well now you know it means force. It is hardly rocket science to put F1 and F2What do you mean byI mean what it says, obviously F is force and obviously ∝ is proportional to. The force pushing down, has to be at least proportional to the force pushing up to keep the Jack in the box.F ∝ F of the lid?
It is traditional to avoid confusion by using different letters for different things so
F is proportional to F
is a bit pointless.
I thought I would share this with you as well as its cool.
piston.jpg (39.03 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3347 times)Post by: jeffreyH on 25/02/2018 20:18:50
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 20:24:27
In your post title does the N stand for non-existent? You are such a stubborn individual. If you dropped the attitude you might get interested in learning. I know you are capable but it's so much more fun baiting other members. Science can also be fun.The N stands for neutral Jeffrey, I am not winding up or baiting anybody. I do have fun as well , but if nobody is answering the questions then the questions remain to be asked.
If the answers lead to a conclusion , is that not the conclusion based on the answers?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 20:32:07
If a is a single element that occupies a volume of space {a} with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise in polarity, can {a} retain form?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 20:41:10
If a is a single element that occupies a volume of space {a} with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise in polarity, can {a} retain form?
1)If a is a single element that occupies a volume of space {a} with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise in polarity, can {a} retain form?
2)If b is a single element that occupies a volume of space {a} with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise in polarity, can {a} retain form?
3)If a and b are individual single elements that occupies a volume of space {a} with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise and opposite in polarity, can {a} retain form?
Propose
1) no
2) no
3) yes
propose force vectors
1) a←→a
2) b←→b
3) a→←b
Propose vector
1) +v
2) +v
3) -v
4) If the combined elements of a + b occupy a volume of space {a} , is {a} attracted to other {a} ?
propose
4) yes
Propose force vector
4)a,b→←a,b
Propose vector
4)-v
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 21:06:35
It is hardly rocket science to put F1 and F2It's simple and obvious.
So the fact that you didn't do it says a lot about you.
Anyway, are you saying (as Newton already did) the the box lid presses back on the Jack?
If so, why call it a proportionality?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 21:15:19
Because the force of containment has to be greater than or proportional to the force of the jack. Yes Newtons laws, the lid pushes back (ignoring it is a mechanism that holds the lid of course).It is hardly rocket science to put F1 and F2It's simple and obvious.
So the fact that you didn't do it says a lot about you.
Anyway, are you saying (as Newton already did) the the box lid presses back on the Jack?
If so, why call it a proportionality?
So ok you got that so far, now in imagination I want you to replace the Jack with electrons. And make the box out of electrons.
Are you ok with that in imagination?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 21:44:40
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 21:49:48
What's holding everything together?Great , I predicted your next question, now you can add the imaginary proton wall to the imaginary electron wall of the box , to hold the box together.
a + b = box
a without b or b without a does not equal anything, it falls apart.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 21:54:42
now you can add the imaginary proton wallWhat's holding that together?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 21:58:11
The electron wallnow you can add the imaginary proton wallWhat's holding that together?
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 22:01:54
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 23:00:07
I know coulomb's law is for electromagnetic force , but it is the best one for describing polarity interaction.
Not when it comes to gravity or the strong nuclear force. If those two forces violate your argument, then obviously you are not talking about polarity in general. Rather, you are talking about a specific form of polarity: that of electromagnetism.
Quote
Why not answer the questions instead of being objective without answering the questions?
Pick up any object that is by you please.
Is the atomic negative polarity of that object attracted to the atomic positive polarity of the ground and near by objects.
A simple yes or no answer is needed.
That depends on what form of polarity you are talking about. Electromagnetic, I presume?
The electron wall
So the wall is made of hydrogen then? That's what you get when you combine electrons and protons.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 00:09:37
Not when it comes to gravity or the strong nuclear force. If those two forces violate your argument, then obviously you are not talking about polarity in general. Rather, you are talking about a specific form of polarity: that of electromagnetism.My argument explains those two forces. So it definitely does not violate it.
I am talking about polarity is the force. Polarity in general .
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 01:29:37
My argument explains those two forces. So it definitely does not violate it.
It does if you say that opposite polarities always attract each other. Protons have a hypercharge of +1, so when two protons attract each other via the strong nuclear force, it is an example of two like polarities attracting each other. Things are even more complicated when the strong force between quarks is involved, as there are six polarities (color charge) instead of only two (blue, green and red for quarks and cyan, yellow and magenta for antiquarks). Quark polarities attract each other when they add up to "white", which is quite different from the way that polarity works with electromagnetism.
Quote
I am talking about polarity is the force.
Can you rephrase this? The grammar makes it difficult to understand.
Quote
Polarity in general .
That's like saying "chemical reactions in general": it's different for different instances.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 01:58:51
I am talking about polarity is the force.Consider polarity as a point of attraction or repulsion.
Can you rephrase this? The grammar makes it difficult to understand.
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 02:00:42
Consider polarity as a point of attraction or repulsion.
Not exactly a typical definition of polarity, given that electric fields are stilled considered to have a polarity even if they are not attracting or repelling anything.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 02:05:07
Are they really not attracting anything ?Consider polarity as a point of attraction or repulsion.
Not exactly a typical definition of polarity, given that electric fields are stilled considered to have a polarity even if they are not attracting or repelling anything.
If an electric field 'E' is made up of elements a + b then the elements remain attractive and repulsive.
The sky does not let harmful rays in because it is repulsive.
Please accept the conceptual definition of Q.F.P , quantum field physicality as observed with magnets.
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 02:12:54
Are they really not attracting anything ?
Technically you could say they are, but an isolate charge far from other charges produces such a weak force that it may as well not be considered.
Quote
If an electric field 'E' is made up of elements a + b then the elements remain attractive and repulsive.
What experiment has demonstrated that electric fields are made up two elements?
Quote
The sky does not let harmful rays in because it is repulsive.
So you don't know how the ozone layer works either?
Quote
Please accept the conceptual definition of Q.F.P , quantum field physicality as observed with magnets.
I have no need to because solidity is sufficiently-well explained by existing physics models.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 02:17:50
What experiment has demonstrated that electric fields are made up two elements?When you measure it to be neutral , 0 charge.
Please accept the conceptual definition of Q.F.P , quantum field physicality as observed with magnets.
Quote
I have no need to because solidity is sufficiently-well explained by existing physics models.
Existing models do not explain the ''fabric'' of space. Einsteins space-time curvature if you like. A body emits a field, the field also has body but not as dense as the source. Fields push back against fields. i.e they have physical body.
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 02:25:01
When you measure it to be neutral , 0 charge.
So it's not true of all electric fields then.
Quote
Existing models do not explain the ''fabric'' of space. Einsteins space-time curvature if you like. A body emits a field, the field also has body but not as dense as the source. Fields push back against fields. i.e they have physical body.
So what definition of "physical" are you using?
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 02:28:15
Any electrical field that is not measuring neutral is polarised as such.When you measure it to be neutral , 0 charge.
So it's not true of all electric fields then.QuoteExisting models do not explain the ''fabric'' of space. Einsteins space-time curvature if you like. A body emits a field, the field also has body but not as dense as the source. Fields push back against fields. i.e they have physical body.
So what definition of "physical" are you using?
I am using physical in the same sense as you, as related to the body , something that has mass. Something that has a density.
Simply imagine two bubbles with a nucleus pushing on each other.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 02:34:33
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 02:46:25
Would a repulse a ?
Would b repulse b ?
would a be attracted to b ?
would b be attracted to a?
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 04:42:44
I will leave you with these questions to ask yourself about the diagram.
Would a repulse a ?
Would b repulse b ?
would a be attracted to b ?
would b be attracted to a?
Without knowing what exactly I'm looking at, I can't answer the questions. What is a? What is b? What is the nucleus? What kind of field is it?
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 10:48:43
It is an atomic field of two opposite polarities a and b, the nucleus in the diagram is a planet or body.I will leave you with these questions to ask yourself about the diagram.
Would a repulse a ?
Would b repulse b ?
would a be attracted to b ?
would b be attracted to a?
Without knowing what exactly I'm looking at, I can't answer the questions. What is a? What is b? What is the nucleus? What kind of field is it?
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 18:03:20
It is an atomic field of two opposite polarities a and b, the nucleus in the diagram is a planet or body.
What is an "atomic field"? Are the polarities electric charge?
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 18:13:44
I suppose it may be an electrostatic field. Although I like to think all fields are a transformation of this singular field.It is an atomic field of two opposite polarities a and b, the nucleus in the diagram is a planet or body.
What is an "atomic field"? Are the polarities electric charge?
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 18:20:10
I suppose it may be an electrostatic field. Although I like to think all fields are a transformation of this singular field.
If the fields contain an even distribution of positive and negative charges, then there will be no attraction or repulsion between the two bodies.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 18:24:58
That is the ostensible part ''you'' are failing to see. It is the other was around, there would be attraction and there would be repulsion when the objects meet, space not having the density to stop -ve of the objects. There would be no net charge but that does not mean all of sudden the properties of the object stop working. Force does not rely on having a charge, force is force.I suppose it may be an electrostatic field. Although I like to think all fields are a transformation of this singular field.
If the fields contain an even distribution of positive and negative charges, then there will be no attraction or repulsion between the two bodies.
Quote
Natural electric field of the Earth
Thunderheads near Borneo, Indonesia are featured in this image photographed by an Expedition 40 crew member on the International Space Station. Credit: M. Justin Wilkinson, Jacobs and Michael Trenchard, Barrios Technology at NASA-JSC.
The natural electric field of the Earth refers to the planet Earth having a natural direct current (DC) electric field or potential gradient from the ground upwards to the ionosphere. The static fair-weather electric field in the atmosphere is ~150 volts per meter (V/m) near the Earth's surface, but it drops exponentially with height to under 1 V/m at 30 km altitude, as the conductivity of the atmosphere increases.
Slightly polarised in the denser regions nearer the mass object.
added- second thought , the measure is the air I think. The air being denser and being slightly polarised.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 18:38:05
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 18:39:00
That is the ostensible part ''you'' are failing to see. It is the other was around, there would be attraction and there would be repulsion when the objects meet, space not having the density to stop -ve of the objects. There would be no net charge but that does not mean all of sudden the properties of the object stop working. Force does not rely on having a charge, force is force.
When forces apply in equal and opposite directions, they cancel out. If you tie a helium balloon with a lifting power of 1 pound to a 1 pound weight, the resulting configuration has no net weight and so neither moves towards or away from the Earth. The wind (or your hands) could move it around freely in any direction.
Quote
QuoteNatural electric field of the Earth
Thunderheads near Borneo, Indonesia are featured in this image photographed by an Expedition 40 crew member on the International Space Station. Credit: M. Justin Wilkinson, Jacobs and Michael Trenchard, Barrios Technology at NASA-JSC.
The natural electric field of the Earth refers to the planet Earth having a natural direct current (DC) electric field or potential gradient from the ground upwards to the ionosphere. The static fair-weather electric field in the atmosphere is ~150 volts per meter (V/m) near the Earth's surface, but it drops exponentially with height to under 1 V/m at 30 km altitude, as the conductivity of the atmosphere increases.
Slightly polarised in the denser regions nearer the mass object.
I don't see in that quote where it says the Earth's electric field is polarized in particular directions.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 18:53:08
When forces apply in equal and opposite directions, they cancel out.I should hope so or my N-field particle would have big problems retaining form.
However if you understand that notion fully, it is not difficult to understand me.
The force only cancels out when the objects are touching. Free space does not have the density or force to stop a dense mass object ''falling''.
It is easier if I explain to you with a set of pan scales. However these pan scales are my special scales that I have yet to make to prove my theory.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Now the only reason the radius remains is because of the rod.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 19:13:19
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 19:18:16
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2018 19:24:18
I think it is quite clearCan you find a single person who agrees with you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2018 19:34:22
a sustains b's form and b sustains a's form.OK, so, if we use copper nuclei (as an example) instead of protons then the box with electrons is a lump of copper.
Hardly cutting edge.
Since (some of ) the electrons are the outermost bit of the box you have finally found the system I pointed out earlier.
The "box" (The stuff that holds the electrons together) is inside the electrons.
I explained this to you here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72338.msg533308#msg533308
a week or two ago.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 19:37:46
I do not actually need to find a single person who agrees with me , although I have had some agreement about gravity.I think it is quite clearCan you find a single person who agrees with you?
A person as to agree with the physics, not agree with me.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 19:41:29
HUH.....there is no electron without a proton. The stuff inside of an electron is likewise to itself. Well actually the stuff inside of an electron is space, the shell is likewise to itself.a sustains b's form and b sustains a's form.OK, so, if we use copper nuclei (as an example) instead of protons then the box with electrons is a lump of copper.
Hardly cutting edge.
Since (some of ) the electrons are the outermost bit of the box you have finally found the system I pointed out earlier.
The "box" (The stuff that holds the electrons together) is inside the electrons.
I explained this to you here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72338.msg533308#msg533308
a week or two ago.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 19:51:14
electron.jpg (22.86 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3514 times)The electron space is the enclosure of electron space pushing back.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2018 20:06:55
there is no electron without a proton.In the real world we have videos of them.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 20:18:30
Existing because they are in a n-field.there is no electron without a proton.In the real world we have videos of them.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2018 20:31:19
http://www.medical-jokes.com/its-to-keep-the-elephants-away/
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 01:11:30
So, the n field keeps the elephants away.Effective isn't it .
http://www.medical-jokes.com/its-to-keep-the-elephants-away/
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 09:09:26
I think it is quite clearCan you find a single person who agrees with you?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 10:49:24
Actually yes, the person who is emailing me and helping with my edit on the paper. They understood and told me I should not give up on this idea.I think it is quite clearCan you find a single person who agrees with you?
Also I think it was Alan who agreed I had found gravity mechanism . You even replied to him and said basically , well yes but it hardly adds anything new. (You never said the word yes though).
What science does with the notion and how science puts the notion is up to them, they will word it more precise than I ever could. It may take them several year just to discuss the notion . I just hope I live long enough to see the notion on Wiki and wherever.
I am certain that neutral is attracted to neutral. I may or not be correct about my N-field and n-field although the physics works and it explains the space ''fabric''.
I am certain about time and can objectively define time to a precise and exact definition.
I have some good thinking on light and the nature of light.
I always knew what I know and what I don't know because I can't know everything.
added - Mr C
Quote
You must not:
ignore inconvenient facts or relevant considerations when providing advice or making decisions
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 13:47:15
Also I think it was Alan who agreed I had found gravity mechanism .Does Alan think so?
Can you find anyone who is actually prepared to say in public that they agree with youActually yes, the person who is emailing me and helping with my edit on the paper. They understood and told me I should not give up on this idea.I think it is quite clearCan you find a single person who agrees with you?
Also, is your email correspondent qualified?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 18:17:57
The person whom I speak to in email has told me they have written several books. They also said they will be happy to have their name in the co-write .Also I think it was Alan who agreed I had found gravity mechanism .Does Alan think so?Can you find anyone who is actually prepared to say in public that they agree with youActually yes, the person who is emailing me and helping with my edit on the paper. They understood and told me I should not give up on this idea.I think it is quite clearCan you find a single person who agrees with you?
Also, is your email correspondent qualified?
We both agree that we should be patience in writing the paper. Whether or not this person will come forward in this thread and back me up, I do not know .
I will email them and ask them , they are a member of this forum.
added- In short, gravity is the natural phenomenon of a neutral electrostatic field is attracted to all other signed electrostatic fields. All other signed electrostatic fields are attracted to neutral electrostatic fields. A phenomenon that is only functional if neutral exists, the combined function of a + b signs allowing G to be functional. Where a and b represent the individual opposite, electrostatic signs.
a and b and a+b is attracted to a,b
F1 ∈ {a}
F2 ∈ {b}
F1 + F2 ∈ {a,b}
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 19:04:30
The person whom I speak to in email has told me they have written several books.So has J K Rowling, but it doesn't qualify her to comment on a hypothesis in physics.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 19:08:43
True, I do not know the persons qualifications. However, I am sure everyone should be able to agree with my latest short explanation?The person whom I speak to in email has told me they have written several books.So has J K Rowling, but it doesn't qualify her to comment on a hypothesis in physics.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 19:14:58
However, I am sure everyone should be able to agree with my latest short explanation?I'm still waiting for you to produce a single real person who agrees with it.
I can produce at least one person (me) who says it's nonsense.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 19:19:53
I have sent an email so await a reply. Also Alan as not yet replied to you, a bit of patience is required.However, I am sure everyone should be able to agree with my latest short explanation?I'm still waiting for you to produce a single real person who agrees with it.
I can produce at least one person (me) who says it's nonsense.
OK, so you say it is nonsense, then please point out any errors in my latest short explanation?
There is no nonsense in that Mr C, stop being objective without considering the information.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 19:35:49
NoSo it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.
So you don't understand but declare it nonsense?
I am saying that, if you don't explain it then it will make sense to nobody.
And that will mean it is nonsense.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 19:41:53
I understand this, that is why I have a co-writer who hopefully can edit and put it better than me. However, I think I have just explained it very well with my short explanation?NoSo it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.
So you don't understand but declare it nonsense?
I am saying that, if you don't explain it then it will make sense to nobody.
And that will mean it is nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 20:49:07
However, I think I have just explained it very well with my short explanation?
Well, you are wrong.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:15:07
Dear Sir, I am still awaiting your explanation of your disapproval. You have not explained your premise for argument of why my logical reasoning and explained facts fail . You have neither shown any inconsistencies with my findings, compared to present information.However, I think I have just explained it very well with my short explanation?
Well, you are wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:31:59
Well actually the stuff inside of an electron is space, the shell is likewise to itself.Ignoring the fact that " the shell is likewise to itself."is incomprehensible, there's another problem.
Eelctrons don't have shells. They are points as far as any measurement is concerned.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:33:43
It is an atomic field of two opposite polarities a and b
You have yet to explain what an "atomic field" is, never mind explain what evidence there is for it.
And, much the same is true of your use of teh word polarity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:35:06
Existing because they are in a n-field.You have provided no evidence for the existence of this field.
Nor have you explained what it actually is, or does.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:36:21
the common factor being polarity, we only need to look at a and b.Again, you have not explained what you mean by "polarity".
Your use of it rules out the conventional meanings.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:37:14
If something has dimensions, it can be point like but cannot be a point. An electron is a point like particle that the physics suggests , with a hollow core.Well actually the stuff inside of an electron is space, the shell is likewise to itself.Ignoring the fact that " the shell is likewise to itself."is incomprehensible, there's another problem.
Eelctrons don't have shells. They are points as far as any measurement is concerned.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:39:34
All e- ∈ {R³}Does not make sense.
Electrons are a member of the set of subatomic particles, or the set of words derived from Greek or the set of very small things.
But they are not an element of of R3
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:40:30
A point like attraction or repulsion.the common factor being polarity, we only need to look at a and b.Again, you have not explained what you mean by "polarity".
Your use of it rules out the conventional meanings.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:40:47
If something has dimensions, it can be point like but cannot be a point. An electron is a point like particle that the physics suggests , with a hollow core
No proof exists that it has dimensions- that is the point.
So there's no evidence to suggest a shell with a hollow core.
You made that up.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:42:00
They occupy R³ so are an element of R³ , R³ is our volume.All e- ∈ {R³}Does not make sense.
Electrons are a member of the set of subatomic particles, or the set of words derived from Greek or the set of very small things.
But they are not an element of of R3
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 21:42:50
If something has dimensions, it can be point like but cannot be a point. An electron is a point like particle that the physics suggests , with a hollow core.
What experiment showed the electron to have a hollow core?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:43:39
If you go through your posts and replace "polarity" by " "A point like attraction or repulsion. "A point like attraction or repulsion.the common factor being polarity, we only need to look at a and b.Again, you have not explained what you mean by "polarity".
Your use of it rules out the conventional meanings.
They still don't mean anything.
Apart from anything else, the phrase itself is meaningless.
An a traction has a direction a point does not.
So an attraction can not be point like.
I'm not finding any difficulty in backing up my claim that you have been posting nonsense.
How are you doing with backing up your claim that it is very well explained?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:44:57
They occupy R³ so are an element of R³ , R³ is our volume.
No the things that are members of R3 are essentially locations rather than physical things.
I may be in Birmingham, but I am not Birmingham.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:45:50
Dear Sir , I have not made anything up. In a R³ space that had a volume element, an inner product that was constructed of likewise electrostatic points, all the points would expand to leave a hollow void in the core.If something has dimensions, it can be point like but cannot be a point. An electron is a point like particle that the physics suggests , with a hollow core
No proof exists that it has dimensions- that is the point.
So there's no evidence to suggest a shell with a hollow core.
You made that up.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:47:28
Now the only reason the radius remains is because of the rod.There is no circle or curve in the diagram to have a radius.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:48:30
You are not far from me, I live M6 North from you, Stoke.They occupy R³ so are an element of R³ , R³ is our volume.
No the things that are members of R3 are essentially locations rather than physical things.
I may be in Birmingham, but I am not Birmingham.
Do you agree there is physical things in a R³ space?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:51:06
You are correct, I should of said distance or length.Now the only reason the radius remains is because of the rod.There is no circle or curve in the diagram to have a radius.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:51:11
likewise electrostatic pointsAgain- gibberish.
What do you actually mean by this?
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 21:52:11
In a R³ space that had a volume element, an inner product that was constructed of likewise electrostatic points, all the points would expand to leave a hollow void in the core.
What experiment demonstrated that electrons have volume?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:54:18
Do you agree there is physical things in a R³ space?It's a matter of definition but no.
I'm not in a mathematical construction. My location can be treated mathematically as a point in R3.
Also the world in which we live is curved so it's not properly mapped by R3.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:55:24
Your suggestion is full of holes.
You should abandon it.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:03:00
A point like particle of electrostatic energy that has a pole.likewise electrostatic pointsAgain- gibberish.
What do you actually mean by this?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:05:11
The physics shows it, I do not know of any existing experiment.If something has dimensions, it can be point like but cannot be a point. An electron is a point like particle that the physics suggests , with a hollow core.
What experiment showed the electron to have a hollow core?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:06:37
None of the counterpoint you have raised has been valid.That would be your opinion and not what the objective physics shows us.
Your suggestion is full of holes.
You should abandon it.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 22:07:48
The physics shows it
What physics shows it?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:11:26
Coulombs law .The physics shows it
What physics shows it?
Newtons third law.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 22:12:44
Coulombs law .
Newtons third law.
How do these prove anything about whether subatomic particles have volume or not?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:17:08
Sorry I thought you meant gravity, I got my wires crossed. In answer to your question, Coulombs law.Coulombs law .
Newtons third law.
How do these prove anything about whether subatomic particles have volume or not?
It shows that a likewise polarity, point like particle , all points would be repulsive points, the only outcome can be a hollow centre, giving the point like particle dimensions.
Post by: petelamana on 27/02/2018 22:17:33
Kyptid's most recent question...
« on: Today at 05:12:44 pm » Quote (selected)
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 05:11:26 pm
Coulombs law .
Newtons third law.
How do these prove anything about whether subatomic particles have volume or not?
...is spot on. Good point.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 22:19:03
It shows that a likewise polarity, point like particle , all points would be repulsive points, the only outcome can be a hollow centre, giving the point like particle dimensions.
What experiment has demonstrated that electrons are composed of multiple points?
Post by: petelamana on 27/02/2018 22:25:45
Is it possible for electrons to by composed of multiple points? If so, how would that be either tested, or expounded upon?
I am not a particle physicist, by any stretch. However, could the "points" be subatomic particles that are the result of an electron - electron collision?
I'm trying to think outside the box, no pun intended.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:28:13
It does not need an experiment , a point is 0 dimension, so for something to exist and have dimension, it has to be surrounding points of a point.It shows that a likewise polarity, point like particle , all points would be repulsive points, the only outcome can be a hollow centre, giving the point like particle dimensions.
What experiment has demonstrated that electrons are composed of multiple points?
0 point + 0 point = r=1x
4/3π(1x)³ = 3d
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 22:31:45
I cannot think of any experiment that does show electrons are composed of multipoints, however that being said...
Is it possible for electrons to by composed of multiple points?
Yes. That is called the "preon model".
Quote
If so, how would that be either tested, or expounded upon?
Scattering experiments. If electrons are made up of three preons, then sufficiently energetic collider experiments would demonstrate that there are three objects that other particles are scattering off of in electrons instead of just one. That is how we experimentally determined that protons are composed of quarks. So far, no evidence for scattering due to preons has showed up.
Quote
It does not need an experiment , a point is 0 dimension, so for something to exist and have dimension, it has to be surrounding points of a point.
0 point + 0 point = r=1x
4/3π(1x)³ = 3d
What experiment demonstrated that electrons have dimension?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:41:45
What experiment demonstrated that electrons have dimension?The maths demonstrated that an electron has to have dimension to exist. The electron can not be made of any sort of opposite points either, or the result would be attractive to other electrons.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 22:44:41
The maths demonstrated that an electron has to have dimension to exist.
Please provide an outside link to the math you speak of. In other words, I'm not asking for math you made up, but math that is well-supported by the existing physics community.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:51:23
I think I used the correct formula for a sphere and the correct maths to add up a length. It is supported math.The maths demonstrated that an electron has to have dimension to exist.
Please provide an outside link to the math you speak of. In other words, I'm not asking for math you made up, but math that is well-supported by the existing physics community.
If the electron has a volume and all points of the volume were the same pole causing an expansion of itself, would this model not work to retain the form of the electron?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 22:53:26
If the electron has a volume
We've already been through this: what experiment has demonstrated that electrons are spheres or have volume? I'm concerned that you might be working yourself into a circular argument.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:56:34
I will give you an experiment, emit some electrons directed at some electrons.If the electron has a volume
We've already been through this: what experiment has demonstrated that electrons are spheres or have volume? I'm concerned that you might be working yourself into a circular argument.
Quote
Colliding two electrons will always produce two scattered electrons, and it may sometimes produce some photons from initial and final state radiation
If they had no volume there would be nothing to collide.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 23:49:14
I will give you an experiment, emit some electrons directed at some electrons.QuoteColliding two electrons will always produce two scattered electrons, and it may sometimes produce some photons from initial and final state radiation
If they had no volume there would be nothing to collide.
Electrons are not like little rubber balls that bounce off of each other. Electrons interact with other electrons via the fields that they possess. They themselves do not need any actual volume or size in order to interact with each other in this way.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2018 06:39:49
So the next time you hear of a mysterious disappearance in the Bermuda Triangle or your washing machine, blame it on a Kryptid electron - what a perfect name!
Post by: Kryptid on 28/02/2018 16:19:52
An electron has mass, about 10-30 kg. If it had zero diameter it would have infinite density and thus behave as a charged black hole. This would be a handy tool: you could steer it around in space (thanks to its charge) and it would mop up all the residual dust, dangerous asteroids and expired satellites with its gravitational field. Indeed you wouldn't need to do any "steering" as the Van Allen belts conveniently consist of electrons whizzing around in the earth's magnetic field.
So the next time you hear of a mysterious disappearance in the Bermuda Triangle or your washing machine, blame it on a Kryptid electron - what a perfect name!
Well there is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron)
It's also worth mentioning that a black hole electron would have the same gravitational field strength as an electron of very small but finite size at any given distance from it (in other words, extremely tiny for most practical distances). So no, they're not going to be sucking up asteroids or satellites or whatever.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2018 17:30:10
It's also worth mentioning that a black hole electron would have the same gravitational field strength as an electron of very small but finite size at any given distance from itTrue, but an electron of zero radius still has a charge, so it can attract a positron or neutral particle to any value of r you wish, including r = 0. At this point the gravitational field is infinite. Now a positron has all the properties of an electron except for a positive charge, so the "black hole electron" can slurp up positron to produce a boson with mass 2me, r = 0, g = ∞, and no charge. It's only a matter of time before this meets another boson....and the universe gradually disappears.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2018 18:29:23
Is it possible for electrons to by composed of multiple points?No
Because the experiments designed to look for that would have shown it (at least on the scale they were designed to look)
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2018 18:31:06
I will give you an experiment, emit some electrons directed at some electrons.That experiment is done all the time.
What outcomes would you predict that differ from what established physics predicts?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2018 18:32:39
If they had no volume there would be nothing to collide.The electrons don't collide.
However their electrostatic fields interact.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2018 18:33:12
After a cursory read of this thread I do see where some promising concepts can be developed.Like what?
Post by: Kryptid on 28/02/2018 21:18:22
True, but an electron of zero radius still has a charge, so it can attract a positron or neutral particle to any value of r you wish, including r = 0. At this point the gravitational field is infinite. Now a positron has all the properties of an electron except for a positive charge, so the "black hole electron" can slurp up positron to produce a boson with mass 2me, r = 0, g = ∞, and no charge. It's only a matter of time before this meets another boson....and the universe gradually disappears.
Such a neutral black hole would be free to undergo Hawking decay without violating charge conservation, and it would be extremely short-lived due to its minute size. It would produce photons with a total energy equal to its mass. Heck, you could probably parallel this with the way that we already know electrons and positrons interact: by producing photons. The extremely short life span of subatomic black holes would be one barrier to prevent them from consuming the Universe. No doubt our understanding of such small black holes is limited anyway, because quantum gravity effects would become very important for them.
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2018 21:45:48
You read it here first, folks!
Post by: guest39538 on 01/03/2018 06:12:02
The mechanics of gravitational force.
Author - S.P. Leese
Spring 2018
Abstract:
On the premise that all signed electrostatic fields are attracted to neutral signed electrostatic fields, this paper proposes a theory that is intended to evidentially show a normalising that is, ''Neutral is attracted to Neutral''. A natural phenomenon that may explain the gravity process.
First will be shown is that the formation of zero point energy (ZPE) is a two part binary construction. The ZPE failing to retain form without the simultaneous co-existence of an opposite sign.
A co-existence that shall be established of opposite signs , simultaneously occupying the same geometric point of a R³ real coordinate space, to form a point particle with point mass.
Additionally, we shall establish plausible conceptual considerations of the point particles emitted field. Finally shall be conclusions , based on the provided information of the paper.
Introduction.
The importance of this paper is to answer the question, what is the underlying mechanics of the gravitational force? Many great minds have considered possibilities, Newton's 1687 discovery pioneering the notions on this mysterious force. Then later in time, Einstein's theory of relativity explaining the force to be a distortion of space or more precisely, space-time.
However, although their contributions are greatly appreciated, nobody so far as answered what the underlying mechanics are, of the gravitational force. Thus leading me to research the information available, to try to discover an answer.
Definitions.
Before any discussion can meaningfully continue several definitions must be preliminary accepted.
1. A R³ real coordinate space shall be labelled [a]
2. [a] is understood to be a volume of geometric positional points
3. Each point within [a] has a standard dimensional size asymptotically equivalent to zero.
4. That i and j are opposite signed electrostatic charge polarity.
5. Let i = positive ZPE
6. let j = negative ZPE
7. A neutral polarity field shall be labelled a N-field
8. A neutral polarity point particle shall be labelled a N-field particle
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2018 20:05:17
a volume of geometric positional pointsPoints have no volume by definition.
positive ZPEYou need to define that too.
A neutral polarity field shall be labelled a N-fieldYou need to explain what you mean by "A neutral polarity field".
Post by: alancalverd on 01/03/2018 20:24:41
On the premise that all signed electrostatic fields are attracted to neutral signed electrostatic fields,Wrong.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/03/2018 21:35:29
Really? You are saying a positive and negative electrostatic charge is not attracted to neutral things?On the premise that all signed electrostatic fields are attracted to neutral signed electrostatic fields,Wrong.
Please explain, I must have entered a new dimension in some sort of parallel universe where the laws of physics have changed.
Quote
Any charged object - whether positively charged or negatively charged - will have an attractive interaction with a neutral object. Positively charged objects and neutral objects attract each other; and negatively charged objects and neutral objects attract each other.
Do my eyes deceive me?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/03/2018 21:39:40
Points have no volume by definition.3. Each point within [a] has a standard dimensional size asymptotically equivalent to zero.
Number 3 already says that.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/03/2018 21:41:13
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 06:12:02A ZPE is described in the abstract, a neutral polarity field is obviously a field that is not positive or negative .
positive ZPE
You need to define that too.
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 06:12:02
A neutral polarity field shall be labelled a N-field
You need to explain what you mean by "A neutral polarity field".
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2018 22:14:59
a neutral polarity field is obviously a field that is not positive or negative .Can you explain what you mean by a field being positive (or negative)?
A field exists round a charge bu that field does not have a charge.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2018 22:16:43
I noticed that.Points have no volume by definition.3. Each point within [a] has a standard dimensional size asymptotically equivalent to zero.
Number 3 already says that.
It implies that not only is 2 wrong, but it is contradicted by 3
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2018 22:20:24
A ZPE is described in the abstractThe abstract says it's a zero point energy.
But you are clearly not using either of the accepted uses of that phrase so, once again, please define it.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/03/2018 22:52:25
A ZPE is described in the abstractThe abstract says it's a zero point energy.
But you are clearly not using either of the accepted uses of that phrase so, once again, please define it.
Quote
Zero-point energy (ZPE) or ground state energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have.
I explain the electrostatic charge is the zpe.
4. That i and j are opposite signed electrostatic charge polarity.
5. Let i = positive ZPE
6. let j = negative ZPE
Do I need to change 4 to : 4. That i and j are opposite signed electrostatic charge polarity of ZPE
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 11:23:00
I explain the electrostatic charge is the zpe.No
You stated that the charge is the ZPE, but that doesn't make sense.
Energy isn't the same as charge- different units etc.
Just saying something doesn't make it true.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 11:27:46
No, I stated the electrostatic is the ZPE, charge/polarity a property of the electrostatic .I explain the electrostatic charge is the zpe.No
You stated that the charge is the ZPE, but that doesn't make sense.
Energy isn't the same as charge- different units etc.
Just saying something doesn't make it true.
4. That i and j are opposite signed electrostatic charge polarity of ZPE
Should I put
4. That i and j are ZPE's with opposite signs, in the form of electrostatic energy.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 11:40:19
The field they possess is the electron in my notion, so yes they are little rubber balls but are only a shell.I will give you an experiment, emit some electrons directed at some electrons.QuoteColliding two electrons will always produce two scattered electrons, and it may sometimes produce some photons from initial and final state radiation
If they had no volume there would be nothing to collide.
Electrons are not like little rubber balls that bounce off of each other. Electrons interact with other electrons via the fields that they possess. They themselves do not need any actual volume or size in order to interact with each other in this way.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 13:46:27
Author - S.P. Leese
Spring 2018
Abstract:
On the premise that all signed electrostatic fields are attracted to neutral signed electrostatic fields, this paper proposes a theory that is intended to evidentially show a normalising that is, ''Neutral is attracted to Neutral''. A natural phenomenon that may explain the gravity process.
First will be shown is that the formation of zero point energy (ZPE) is a two part binary construction. The ZPE failing to retain form without the simultaneous co-existence of an opposite sign.
A co-existence that shall be established of opposite signs , simultaneously occupying the same geometric point of a R³ real coordinate space, to form a point particle with point mass.
Additionally, we shall establish plausible conceptual considerations of the point particles emitted field. Finally shall be conclusions , based on the provided information of the paper.
Introduction.
The importance of this paper is to answer the question, what is the underlying mechanics of the gravitational force? Many great minds have considered possibilities, Newton's 1687 discovery pioneering the notions on this mysterious force. Then later in time, Einstein's theory of relativity explaining the force to be a distortion of space or more precisely, space-time.
However, although their contributions are greatly appreciated, nobody so far as answered what the underlying mechanics are, of the gravitational force. Thus leading me to research and question the present information available, looking for the answer. I will present several chapters on various things , that lead the way to my final conclusion .
Definitions.
Before any meaningfully discussion can continue , several definitions must be preliminary accepted.
1. A R³ real coordinate space shall be labelled [a]
2. [a] is understood to be a volume of real space
3. Each point within [a] has a standard dimensional of zero.
4. That i and j are ZPE's (zero point energy)
5. That i and j are electrostatic energy of opposite signs
5. Let i = negative sign
6. Let j = positive sign
7. A field that is measured to be neutral in charge, shall be labelled a N-field
8. A point particle that is measured to be neutral in charge , shall be labelled a N-field particle
Chapter 1 - Before the Big Bang there was nothing, not even space.
Let us be clear in our minds what we mean by space. Space is a vast expanse of nothing, it has no physicality. Space does not age or change, things change relative to space, age and position change relative to space. Space being the absolute reference frame of comparison, a constant 0 value that we can compare things to in measurement. In example let us consider a train carriage in respect to the embankment, the train moves in respect to the embankment, the embankment has relative 0 velocity. However relative to space, the embankment and the train carriage are moving through space. Now let us consider a clock on the embankment, the embankment, the train carriage and the clock all age in accordance with the measure of their own clock. However they have all aged relative to the 0 change of space. Thus leading to my first question.
Before the big bang there was nothing, could this nothing be space?
It would not seem logical that no space existed, for an event to happen it would almost certainly need a space to happen in. There is no apparent evidence that space can be created or destroyed, so maybe in the beginning there was just space. Space could certainly be considered in being nothing , a dimensional volume of emptiness. Without light the space would seem to have no dimensions, point sources allowing us to perceive spacial distance. Without these point sources , space would just be visual ''blackness'', as if nothing. The thought of 0 dimensions always leads to in one's mind, a surrounding darkness of a point . This darkness being a limitation that is, without light.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09
No, I stated the electrostatic is the ZPE, charge/polarity a property of the electrostatic .Did you read that through before posting it?
The field they possess is the electron in my notion, so yes they are little rubber balls but are only a shell.Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 14:06:04
An electron has a diameter, therefore is has a volume. Therefore all points of the volume are likewise in repulsive force to each other. Outcome is an electron shell that is hollow.No, I stated the electrostatic is the ZPE, charge/polarity a property of the electrostatic .Did you read that through before posting it?The field they possess is the electron in my notion, so yes they are little rubber balls but are only a shell.Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38
An electron has a diameter
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 14:11:47
If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.An electron has a diameterStill not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
Post by: The Spoon on 02/03/2018 15:15:12
What about the wind?If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.An electron has a diameterStill not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
Post by: Kryptid on 02/03/2018 17:33:46
If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
The electromagnetic and weak nuclear fields of an electron have volume. So by your own reasoning, that's sufficient to explain why they can exert force on other things. The electron itself need not have any volume.
Even if electrons do have a finite size and volume, it does not follow that they are composite particles made up of smaller entities that can repel each other. One of your problems is that you think of quantum objects as if they were macroscopic objects like gas clouds. A gas cloud is made up of small, tangible particles capable of interacting with each other. They can move closer to each other or farther apart. So far, there is no evidence that electrons are made of anything smaller than themselves. So such an analogy is faulty from the get-go.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 20:58:04
You mean air travelling at a velocity don't you?What about the wind?If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.An electron has a diameterStill not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 21:02:32
Imagine an electron to be made up of repulsive points and it stretching from the inside out. A bit like a balloon inflating but without the air. The inner walls of the ''balloon'' being repulsive . The ''skin'' of the ''balloon, stretched.If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
The electromagnetic and weak nuclear fields of an electron have volume. So by your own reasoning, that's sufficient to explain why they can exert force on other things. The electron itself need not have any volume.
Even if electrons do have a finite size and volume, it does not follow that they are composite particles made up of smaller entities that can repel each other. One of your problems is that you think of quantum objects as if they were macroscopic objects like gas clouds. A gas cloud is made up of small, tangible particles capable of interacting with each other. They can move closer to each other or farther apart. So far, there is no evidence that electrons are made of anything smaller than themselves. So such an analogy is faulty from the get-go.
In comparison a hollow rubber ball.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/03/2018 22:31:33
Imagine an electron to be made up of repulsive points and it stretching from the inside out. A bit like a balloon inflating but without the air. The inner walls of the ''balloon'' being repulsive . The ''skin'' of the ''balloon, stretched.
In comparison a hollow rubber ball.
There you go with analogies to macroscopic objects again. There are no experiments demonstrating that electrons are made up of "repulsive points" or anything smaller than themselves. There are no experiments that demonstrate individual electrons behave like rubber.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 23:05:06
You are correct in what you are saying, but there is reasons to believe that my notions are a possibility. I did not make my statement based on nothing.Imagine an electron to be made up of repulsive points and it stretching from the inside out. A bit like a balloon inflating but without the air. The inner walls of the ''balloon'' being repulsive . The ''skin'' of the ''balloon, stretched.
In comparison a hollow rubber ball.
There you go with analogies to macroscopic objects again. There are no experiments demonstrating that electrons are made up of "repulsive points" or anything smaller than themselves. There are no experiments that demonstrate individual electrons behave like rubber.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/03/2018 23:33:51
I did not make my statement based on nothing.
You make your statements based on unsupported assumptions about the properties of electrons, which makes them suspect.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 08:39:56
The notion is not supported in the way of vigorous experiment, the notion is supported by actions and the laws of forces etc. That may describe my model of the electron and proton, to be a physical fact.I did not make my statement based on nothing.
You make your statements based on unsupported assumptions about the properties of electrons, which makes them suspect.
Having an electron, being a physical particle of one whole, is like saying a balloon does not inflate if you inflate it.
I also do not believe there is such a thing as a point particle having 0 dimensions, it would not exist so therefore must have a really micro volume to exist.
0 dimension in my mind is 0 existence and a 0 point property of space.
Before the BB there was nothing, so a point particle can not be 0 dimensions because that would be a prequel to the big bang.
Compare versions.
compare.jpg (38.79 kB . 731x461 - viewed 4355 times)Now in your version, which it must be bigger than 0 to exist, it has no other option but to form my version.
Your version only having mass to protons, repulsing other electrons, shows that your version can not be made of opposite pole points, or it would have mass to other electrons.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 09:04:37
i,j.jpg (21.95 kB . 731x461 - viewed 4399 times)That is why the little blighters are so hard to separate. They are merged fields and all points of the field are occupied simultaneously by opposite signs.
E = (i+j)c³
Added - The centre point of this sphere design would be an absolute perfect equilibrium. A negative, positive or neutral charge in the centre of this would be absolutely stationary.
Because F1 = F2 and all the force vector , linear field lines would be isotropic.
As I have mentioned before a critical balanced system.,
added- I thought you might like to see this of my model.
That is also what time looks like.
Post by: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 11:37:26
People know what the wind is - why do you give such a meaningless, convoluted definition? How does it actually relate to the point?You mean air travelling at a velocity don't you?What about the wind?If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.An electron has a diameterStill not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 11:41:31
You asked about the wind, the answer I gave was related to what you asked, unless you meant something else. But if you are writing a question you did not mean to ask, I can only give the answer to what you asked.People know what the wind is - why do you give such a meaningless, convoluted definition? How does it actually relate to the point?You mean air travelling at a velocity don't you?What about the wind?If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.An electron has a diameterStill not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 11:43:52
What is your what question?
Post by: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 11:52:55
You didnt give an answer, just some some convoluted word salad that you think makes you sound smart. It doesnt.You asked about the wind, the answer I gave was related to what you asked, unless you meant something else. But if you are writing a question you did not mean to ask, I can only give the answer to what you asked.People know what the wind is - why do you give such a meaningless, convoluted definition? How does it actually relate to the point?You mean air travelling at a velocity don't you?What about the wind?If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.An electron has a diameterStill not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 11:55:26
I gave an answer for the vague question you give, you said ''what about the wind? ''You didnt give an answer, just some some convoluted word salad that you think makes you sound smart. It doesnt.You asked about the wind, the answer I gave was related to what you asked, unless you meant something else. But if you are writing a question you did not mean to ask, I can only give the answer to what you asked.People know what the wind is - why do you give such a meaningless, convoluted definition? How does it actually relate to the point?You mean air travelling at a velocity don't you?What about the wind?If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.An electron has a diameterStill not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
I was talking about physicality so assumed you meant something to do with the winds physical present, hence my answer about air. If you didn't mean that, what were you asking?
Post by: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 12:39:02
It was not a vague question in view of your preceding comment.I gave an answer for the vague question you give, you said ''what about the wind? ''You didnt give an answer, just some some convoluted word salad that you think makes you sound smart. It doesnt.You asked about the wind, the answer I gave was related to what you asked, unless you meant something else. But if you are writing a question you did not mean to ask, I can only give the answer to what you asked.People know what the wind is - why do you give such a meaningless, convoluted definition? How does it actually relate to the point?You mean air travelling at a velocity don't you?What about the wind?If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.An electron has a diameterStill not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
I was talking about physicality so assumed you meant something to do with the winds physical present, hence my answer about air. If you didn't mean that, what were you asking?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2018 12:42:40
Imagine an electron to be made up of repulsive points and it stretching from the inside out. A bit like a balloon inflating but without the air. The inner walls of the ''balloon'' being repulsive . The ''skin'' of the ''balloon, stretched.Reminds me of this bit from the hitchhikers guide.
"Yeah, well, Forget that. I mean do you know how the universe began for a kick off?
ARTHUR:
Well probably not
FORD:
Alright imagine this: you get a large round bath made of ebony.
ARTHUR:
Where from? Harrod’s was destroyed by the Vogons.
FORD:
Well it doesn’t matter -
ARTHUR:
So you keep saying!
FORD:
No, No listen. Just imagine that you’ve got this ebony bath, right? And it’s conical.
ARTHUR:
Conical? What kind of bath is -
FORD:
No, no, shh, shhh, it’s, it’s, it’s conical okay? So what you do, you fill it with fine white sand right? Or sugar, or anything like that. And when it’s full, you pull the plug out and it all just twirls down out of the plug hole… but the thing is…
ARTHUR:
Why?
FORD:
No, the clever thing is that you film it happening. You get a movie camera from somewhere and actually film it. But then you thread the film in the projector backwards.
ARTHUR:
Backwards?
FORD:
Yeah, neat you see. So what happens is you sit and you watch it and then everything appears to swirl upwards, out of the plug hole and fill the bath… amazing.
ARTHUR:
And that’s how the universe began?
FORD:
No. But it’s a marvellous way to relax. "
Post by: Kryptid on 03/03/2018 15:16:29
The notion is not supported in the way of vigorous experiment, the notion is supported by actions and the laws of forces etc. That may describe my model of the electron and proton, to be a physical fact.
You don't know that electrons are elastic. You don't know that electrons are made up of anything smaller than themselves.
Quote
Having an electron, being a physical particle of one whole, is like saying a balloon does not inflate if you inflate it.
What is "a physical particle of one whole"?
Quote
I also do not believe there is such a thing as a point particle having 0 dimensions, it would not exist so therefore must have a really micro volume to exist.
I'm afraid that's just your philosophical notion. Even if it turned out that electrons are not points, they still don't have to have volume. String theory posits that they are one-dimensional strings, for example. One-dimensional objects don't have volume either.
Quote
0 dimension in my mind is 0 existence and a 0 point property of space.
What is in your mind isn't necessarily true of reality.
Quote
Before the BB there was nothing
How do you know?
Quote
so a point particle can not be 0 dimensions because that would be a prequel to the big bang.
Major non-sequitur.
Quote
Compare versions.
[attachment=0,msg535140]
Now in your version, which it must be bigger than 0 to exist
You don't know that. Relativity can model points (i.e. singularities) and posits that they do have an effect on other objects, so having zero dimensions would not preclude something from existing (at least in principle).
Quote
it has no other option but to form my version.
Wrong. If electrons are not made of anything smaller than themselves, then there is nothing there that can do any stretching. There would not be discrete entities inside of the electron that are repelling each other. You're using the mistaken rubber/gas analogy again.
Quote
Your version only having mass to protons, repulsing other electrons, shows that your version can not be made of opposite pole points, or it would have mass to other electrons.
This is nearly incomprehensible. What is "mass to protons" or "mass to other electrons" supposed to mean? Mass is mass.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 16:06:05
Having an electron, being a physical particle of one whole, is like saying a balloon does not inflate if you inflate it.One that is adjoined
What is "a physical particle of one whole"?
Quote
Before the BB there was nothing
How do you know?
I define nothing as space. So before the big bang there was space.
Quote
Your version only having mass to protons, repulsing other electrons, shows that your version can not be made of opposite pole points, or it would have mass to other electrons.
This is nearly incomprehensible. What is "mass to protons" or "mass to other electrons" supposed to mean? Mass is mass.
sorry, just replace the word mass with gravity
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2018 16:09:24
One that is adjoinedThat's still meaningless.
I define nothing as space. So before the big bang there was space.Why not use the right definition in order to reduce confusion?
sorry, just replace the word mass with gravityt's still nonsense after you do that.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/03/2018 12:51:35
Let us be clear in our minds what we mean by space. Space is a vast expanse of nothing, it has no physicality. Space does not age or change, things change relative to space, age or position being a change relative to space. Space being the absolute reference frame of comparison, a constant 0 value that we can compare things to in measurement. In example let us consider a train carriage in respect to the embankment, the train moves in respect to the embankment, the embankment has relative 0 velocity. However relative to space, the embankment and the train carriage are moving through space. Now let us consider a clock on the embankment, the embankment, the train carriage and the clock all age in accordance with the measure of their own clock. However they have all aged relative to the 0 change of space. Thus leading to my first question.
Before the big bang there was nothing, could this nothing be space?
It would not seem logical that no space existed, for an event to happen it would almost certainly need a space to happen in. There is no apparent evidence that space can be created or destroyed, so maybe in the beginning there was just space. Space could certainly be considered in being nothing , a dimensional volume of emptiness. Without light the space would seem to have no dimensions, point sources allowing us to perceive spacial distance. Without these point sources , space would just be visual ''blackness'', as if nothing. The thought of 0 dimensions always leads to in one's mind, a surrounding darkness. This darkness being a limitation that is without light.
Let us be clear in our minds of what is time?
I define time to be : A Quantifiable duration of existence in an absolute space.
The transparency of space-time allowing for measurable existences, the transparency allowing for the apparently of ageing compared to the absolute nothing space.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/03/2018 13:03:47
I define nothing as space. So before the big bang there was space.I did define the right version, nothing is not the same as 0 dimensions. i.e whats in that box? nothing.
Why not use the right definition in order to reduce confusion?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2018 14:29:42
et us be clear in our minds what we mean by space. Space is a vast expanse of nothing, it has no physicality. Space does not age or change,Space changes.
It becomes curved if you put mass in it.
Other stuff you have posted is equally obviously wrong.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/03/2018 14:54:55
Something else you do not understand I see about the curvature of fields in space. Spacial fields have special mass.et us be clear in our minds what we mean by space. Space is a vast expanse of nothing, it has no physicality. Space does not age or change,Space changes.
It becomes curved if you put mass in it.
Other stuff you have posted is equally obviously wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2018 17:59:49
Spacial fields have special mass.Yes and this is a special thread.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 13:02:36
If electrons independently exist of the atom, then that demonstrates the electrons are spherical and have a volume. The reason for this is the objective physics I have demonstrated. It is not a belief of mine, the physics is suggestive to the very possibility of this .If the electron has a volume
We've already been through this: what experiment has demonstrated that electrons are spheres or have volume? I'm concerned that you might be working yourself into a circular argument.
I do not think objectively that a point particle could exist, a point space provable but not a point particle.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 13:11:28
The strong nuclear force is the entanglement of n-fields, the emitted field of the atom (N-field particle).
Post by: Kryptid on 18/03/2018 14:17:23
If electrons independently exist of the atom, then that demonstrates the electrons are spherical and have a volume. The reason for this is the objective physics I have demonstrated. It is not a belief of mine, the physics is suggestive to the very possibility of this .
Your argument hinges on electrons having particular properties which you have not demonstrated that they have (such as consisting of smaller components that are capable of repelling each other or elasticity).
Quote
I do not think objectively that a point particle could exist, a point space provable but not a point particle.
Constantly injecting the word "objective" into your arguments does not give them any extra strength. Just because you don't understand how a point particle could exist doesn't mean they cannot. Even if they can't, that wouldn't rule out particles as one-dimensional strings.
Quote
All neutral atoms are attracted to neutral atoms, all cations are attracted to neutral atoms, all anions are attracted to neutral atoms, like it or not this does explain gravity mechanism and I am right .
You can't declare that until a confirmatory experiment demonstrates it.
Quote
The strong nuclear force is the entanglement of n-fields, the emitted field of the atom (N-field particle).
What is an entanglement of n-fields?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 14:21:40
You can't declare that until a confirmatory experiment demonstrates it.Drop any object, confirmed,
Rub a balloon on your hair and stick it to a wall, confirmed.
added- The balloon falls to the ground when neutral but once charged sticks to the wall. Proof.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 14:24:16
What is an entanglement of n-fields?
Atomic field a+b have ''clamps'' on other atomic fields a+b
They bond in the outer ''shell layers'' where the magnitude is weak (less dense according to the inverse).
Post by: Kryptid on 18/03/2018 14:30:25
You can't declare that until a confirmatory experiment demonstrates it.Drop any object, confirmed,
Rub a balloon on your hair and stick it to a wall, confirmed.
added- The balloon falls to the ground when neutral but once charged sticks to the wall. Proof.
That does not demonstrate that the force which pulls the balloon towards the Earth is the same as the one makes it stick to the wall. So no, a confirmatory experiment for your model has not yet been performed.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 14:45:49
You can't declare that until a confirmatory experiment demonstrates it.Drop any object, confirmed,
Rub a balloon on your hair and stick it to a wall, confirmed.
added- The balloon falls to the ground when neutral but once charged sticks to the wall. Proof.
That does not demonstrate that the force which pulls the balloon towards the Earth is the same as the one makes it stick to the wall. So no, a confirmatory experiment for your model has not yet been performed.
I think it does demonstrate the model and disagree with your disagreement on the physical facts and interpretation of the results.
Let us diagnose the experiment.
Do you agree?
1) The balloons atoms in a stable state remain electrically neutral
2) The balloons atoms in an excited state create a positive or negative electrostatic charge
3) The grounds and walls atoms in a steady state remain electrically Neutral
4) The balloons atoms consist of a negative and a positive charge
5) The balloons atoms negative charge is attracted to the grounds positive charge
6) The balloons atoms positive charge is attracted to the negative charge of the ground
7) When the balloons atoms are in a state of excitement and become negative or positive electrostatic charged , the balloon can overcome the affects of the gravitation of the ground by being more attracted to the gravitation of the wall.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 14:48:33
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 14:55:55
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Kryptid on 18/03/2018 16:53:22
I think it does demonstrate the model and disagree with your disagreement on the physical facts and interpretation of the results.
It does no such thing. One thing you would need to do is demonstrate mathematically that the strength of attraction between two neutral objects matches the measured strength of gravity between the same two objects. If it turns out that your model predicts a different strength of attraction between neutral objects than that of gravity, then that would be a falsification of your model.
Quote
Do you agree?
1) The balloons atoms in a stable state remain electrically neutral
Define "stable state".
Quote
2) The balloons atoms in an excited state create a positive or negative electrostatic charge
No. That's not what the word "excited" means in atomic physics.
Quote
3) The grounds and walls atoms in a steady state remain electrically Neutral
Define "steady state".
Quote
4) The balloons atoms consist of a negative and a positive charge
Yes.
Quote
5) The balloons atoms negative charge is attracted to the grounds positive charge
No, because any such attraction is cancelled out by repulsion.
Quote
6) The balloons atoms positive charge is attracted to the negative charge of the ground
No, because any such attraction is cancelled out by repulsion.
Quote
7) When the balloons atoms are in a state of excitement and become negative or positive electrostatic charged , the balloon can overcome the affects of the gravitation of the ground by being more attracted to the gravitation of the wall.
No.
Post by: PmbPhy on 18/03/2018 17:13:23
Quote from: Thebox
Surely I deserve some credit for this one?Hardly. In the first place stating something as if it were true is nothing more than idle talk. An this case you never explain what an n-field is. In the second place its already been proposed and published.
There are no particles, there are only fields by Art Hobson, Am. J. Phys. 81 (3), March 2013, 211-223
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4789885
You can download and read it from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 17:17:10
Define "steady state".Equal loss to gain
Quote
No, because any such attraction is cancelled out by repulsion
Yes because the attraction is cancelled out by the repulsion when the object hits the ground . An object is not sucked into the ground or the wall. The ground and wall pushes back.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 17:22:25
Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.Quote from: TheboxSurely I deserve some credit for this one?Hardly. In the first place stating something as if it were true is nothing more than idle talk. An this case you never explain what an n-field is. In the second place its already been proposed and published.
There are no particles, there are only fields by Art Hobson, Am. J. Phys. 81 (3), March 2013, 211-223
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4789885
You can download and read it from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616
Quote
Are the fundamental constituents fields or particles?
They are field particles in my model.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/03/2018 00:33:32
Equal loss to gain
Loss and gain of what?
Quote
Yes because the attraction is cancelled out by the repulsion when the object hits the ground . An object is not sucked into the ground or the wall. The ground and wall pushes back.
So you're saying that the attraction between electrons/protons in two neutral objects is stronger than the repulsion between electrons/electrons and protons/protons in those same two neutral objects? That's the only way you can have a net attraction.
Post by: PmbPhy on 19/03/2018 00:37:32
Quote from: Theboxi
Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?
You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 13:47:25
I am wrong about what my own notion states? how strangeQuote from: TheboxiWell my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?
You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.
It is not a model? That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.
Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.
Post by: The Spoon on 19/03/2018 14:48:25
I think he means that your notion is wrong. You are right that it is a notion - not a model. It has absolutely no supporting evidence but your say so.I am wrong about what my own notion states? how strangeQuote from: TheboxiWell my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?
You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.
It is not a model? That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.
Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.
Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge and the scientific ideas presented are more than just 'a few words a few pics and a bit of math' . Mimicking Wikipedia is all very well, buit it does not make your notions any more scientific than me a cow because I can mimic a cow.
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 14:53:03
Ok, he does not have to agree that I am correct, however , have you ever fixed an engine where you did not know the problem so had to do trial and error until you was left with one part to test?I think he means that your notion is wrong. You are right that it is a notion - not a model. It has absolutely no supporting evidence but your say so.I am wrong about what my own notion states? how strangeQuote from: TheboxiWell my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?
You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.
It is not a model? That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.
Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.
Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge and the scientific ideas presented are more than just 'a few words a few pics and a bit of math' . Mimicking Wikipedia is all very well, buit it does not make your notions any more scientific than me a cow because I can mimic a cow.
This is very similar to what I did with gravity, the last part I gave science to test, it is the last part and I know it is correct because it is the last part.
So if science ignore this , this is their choice because I can't do anymore than I have done .
Post by: PmbPhy on 19/03/2018 15:11:59
Post by: The Spoon on 19/03/2018 15:22:36
No. I have fixed car engines on many occasions and approached it systematically using evidence from the symptoms of the fault to diagnose what was wrong. This is the opposite to your ignorant, slapdash approach to everything.Ok, he does not have to agree that I am correct, however , have you ever fixed an engine where you did not know the problem so had to do trial and error until you was left with one part to test?I think he means that your notion is wrong. You are right that it is a notion - not a model. It has absolutely no supporting evidence but your say so.I am wrong about what my own notion states? how strangeQuote from: TheboxiWell my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?
You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.
It is not a model? That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.
Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.
Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge and the scientific ideas presented are more than just 'a few words a few pics and a bit of math' . Mimicking Wikipedia is all very well, buit it does not make your notions any more scientific than me a cow because I can mimic a cow.
This is very similar to what I did with gravity, the last part I gave science to test, it is the last part and I know it is correct because it is the last part.
So if science ignore this , this is their choice because I can't do anymore than I have done .
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 15:25:03
Thebox - If you wanted to be banned why are you posting so often? Why not delete your account and move on if that's how you felt?I love thinking, where else better to think other than about science on a science forum?
I like science Pm, I consider I am trying to help with my thinking by helping science to think a bit more about what they already know.
Also it passes the time, I have little interest in other things, bored of life I suppose.
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 15:29:08
No it is not, it is the same approach, I use trial and error. A while back I tried to explain gravity as negative is attracted to negative, I then went onto think more about the components of the engine, I stripped the engine down to the smallest of components and the only answer that was left is neutral is attracted to neutral.No. I have fixed car engines on many occasions and approached it systematically using evidence from the symptoms of the fault to diagnose what was wrong. This is the opposite to your ignorant, slapdash approach to everything.Ok, he does not have to agree that I am correct, however , have you ever fixed an engine where you did not know the problem so had to do trial and error until you was left with one part to test?I think he means that your notion is wrong. You are right that it is a notion - not a model. It has absolutely no supporting evidence but your say so.I am wrong about what my own notion states? how strangeQuote from: TheboxiWell my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?
You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.
It is not a model? That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.
Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.
Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge and the scientific ideas presented are more than just 'a few words a few pics and a bit of math' . Mimicking Wikipedia is all very well, buit it does not make your notions any more scientific than me a cow because I can mimic a cow.
This is very similar to what I did with gravity, the last part I gave science to test, it is the last part and I know it is correct because it is the last part.
So if science ignore this , this is their choice because I can't do anymore than I have done .
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 15:32:43
An electron is attracted to a Proton making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral
The electron in N is still attracted to the Protons of other N's.
The Proton in N is still attracted to the electrons of other N's.
That simple.
N→←N
a+b→←a+b
(-e)+(+1e)→←(-e)+(+1e)
(q-)+(q+)→←(q-)+(q+)
It all has the same outcome.
added- Don't forget velocity = radius not gravity.
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 15:42:30
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2018 16:16:32
What is so difficult to understand?The fact that "making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral " doesn't make sense.
An electron is attracted to a Proton making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral
Part of the reason is that an electron and a proton make a hydrogen atom- which isn't an engine.
Another part of the problem is that, as usual, you haven't properly defined your terms- what are a and b?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 16:22:01
a and b are obviously the electron and proton.What is so difficult to understand?The fact that "making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral " doesn't make sense.
An electron is attracted to a Proton making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral
Part of the reason is that an electron and a proton make a hydrogen atom- which isn't an engine.
Another part of the problem is that, as usual, you haven't properly defined your terms- what are a and b?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2018 16:48:37
Also as I pointed out earlier, together them make a hydrogen atom, not "N" or an engine.
Until you learn to express yourself properly, you are wasting both your time and ours.
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 16:50:52
But "an electron plus a proton = neutral" doesn't make sense because neutral is an adjective, not a noun.What? words does not make'th science.
Also as I pointed out earlier, together them make a hydrogen atom, not "N" or an engine.
Until you learn to express yourself properly, you are wasting both your time and ours.
Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?
(a+b)2 = F²=Neutron
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2018 16:54:04
It's a matter of, if you don't say it clearly, you might as well not bother to say it at all.
In particular, this doesn't help because in reality t goes the other way.
Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 16:59:39
It's not a matter of what I want you to say.Well I said it clearly perhaps I could say it again
It's a matter of, if you don't say it clearly, you might as well not bother to say it at all.
In particular, this doesn't help because in reality t goes the other way.Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?
(-e) + (+1e) = n
(+1e) + (-e) = n
It is the same either way is it not?
(a+b=c)=(b+a=c)=(c=a+b)=(c=b+a)
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 17:13:15
x+1+x-1=0
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2018 17:16:52
(-e) + (+1e) = n
OK, that's clear- but it's wrong.
In the real world
(-e) + (+1e) = a pair of gamma rays
Post by: The Spoon on 19/03/2018 17:19:36
It doesn't matter what random characters or operators you put in, it is still nonsense and betrays your complete lack of knowledge of both science and maths. You ofrst staeBut "an electron plus a proton = neutral" doesn't make sense because neutral is an adjective, not a noun.What? words does not make'th science.
Also as I pointed out earlier, together them make a hydrogen atom, not "N" or an engine.
Until you learn to express yourself properly, you are wasting both your time and ours.
Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?
(a+b)2 = F²=Neutron
a+b=N
then you state
(a+b)2 = F²=Neutron
Randomly additng brackets or squaring the output does not mean it makes sense. You have also not explained why the output is squared or why you have multiplied a+b by 2.
Another thing - saying 'a and b are obviously the electron and proton' is only obvious to you.
Saying'What? words does not make'th science' is more nonsense. Unless you can communicate an idea clearly how can you expect people to understand what you are talking about. If you dont want them to, why are you posting your nonsense all over the web?
Or... is it a case of you not wanting people to understand so that they cannot contradict you but you can keep posting stuff endlessly?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 17:24:05
(-e) + (+1e) = n
OK, that's clear- but it's wrong.
In the real world
(-e) + (+1e) = a pair of gamma rays
(q1)+(q2)=q0
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 17:27:01
The neutron is the combined product of an electron and a proton. The atom is the neutron. The neutron can be a cation or an anion.It doesn't matter what random characters or operators you put in, it is still nonsense and betrays your complete lack of knowledge of both science and maths. You ofrst staeBut "an electron plus a proton = neutral" doesn't make sense because neutral is an adjective, not a noun.What? words does not make'th science.
Also as I pointed out earlier, together them make a hydrogen atom, not "N" or an engine.
Until you learn to express yourself properly, you are wasting both your time and ours.
Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?
(a+b)2 = F²=Neutron
a+b=N
then you state
(a+b)2 = F²=Neutron
Randomly additng brackets or squaring the output does not mean it makes sense. You have also not explained why the output is squared or why you have multiplied a+b by 2.
Another thing - saying 'a and b are obviously the electron and proton' is only obvious to you.
Saying'What? words does not make'th science' is more nonsense. Unless you can communicate an idea clearly how can you expect people to understand what you are talking about. If you dont want them to, why are you posting your nonsense all over the web?
Or... is it a case of you not wanting people to understand so that they cannot contradict you but you can keep posting stuff endlessly?
ok?
Post by: The Spoon on 19/03/2018 19:11:04
No. That is absolute crap. A neutron forms part of the nucleus.The neutron is the combined product of an electron and a proton. The atom is the neutron. The neutron can be a cation or an anion.It doesn't matter what random characters or operators you put in, it is still nonsense and betrays your complete lack of knowledge of both science and maths. You ofrst staeBut "an electron plus a proton = neutral" doesn't make sense because neutral is an adjective, not a noun.What? words does not make'th science.
Also as I pointed out earlier, together them make a hydrogen atom, not "N" or an engine.
Until you learn to express yourself properly, you are wasting both your time and ours.
Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?
(a+b)2 = F²=Neutron
a+b=N
then you state
(a+b)2 = F²=Neutron
Randomly additng brackets or squaring the output does not mean it makes sense. You have also not explained why the output is squared or why you have multiplied a+b by 2.
Another thing - saying 'a and b are obviously the electron and proton' is only obvious to you.
Saying'What? words does not make'th science' is more nonsense. Unless you can communicate an idea clearly how can you expect people to understand what you are talking about. If you dont want them to, why are you posting your nonsense all over the web?
Or... is it a case of you not wanting people to understand so that they cannot contradict you but you can keep posting stuff endlessly?
ok?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2018 19:14:46
The atom is the neutron.No.
The neutron has a half life of 881.5 seconds.
The hydrogen atom does not.
It would help if you studied some science, rather than posting stuff that's just not right.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2018 19:16:04
That's a mighty long post to say nothing much.(-e) + (+1e) = n
OK, that's clear- but it's wrong.
In the real world
(-e) + (+1e) = a pair of gamma rays
(q1)+(q2)=q0
Were you planning on adding an explanation- it could certainly do with one.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/03/2018 19:16:53
No.
The neutron has a half life of 881.5 seconds.
The hydrogen atom does not.
It would help if you studied some science, rather than posting stuff that's just not right.
The neutron also weighs more than the hydrogen atom.
Post by: guest39538 on 20/03/2018 14:32:40
The Hydrogen atom has less force acting on it than a Neutron. However I will have to re-think , I am about 99.9% sure that gravity is polarity related.No.
The neutron has a half life of 881.5 seconds.
The hydrogen atom does not.
It would help if you studied some science, rather than posting stuff that's just not right.
The neutron also weighs more than the hydrogen atom.
I, we , just need to work it.
Post by: guest39538 on 20/03/2018 14:36:55
Is it possible that gaseous atoms are different to solid state atoms?
Gaseous atoms quite clearly are invisible where solid state atoms are visible. There must be a difference.
p.s Why do gaseous atoms not form a dense mass by gravity?
Post by: Kryptid on 20/03/2018 20:36:33
The Hydrogen atom has less force acting on it than a Neutron.
That statement doesn't make sense given that the amount of force acting on a hydrogen atom or a neutron is going to vary enormously depending on the environment they are in. Besides, mass is constant regardless of the force acting on it. I may weigh less on Mars than on Earth, but the amount of mass I have does not change between the two planets (I would resist being accelerated just as much on Earth as I would on Mars). So a hydrogen atom and neutron would have invariant rest masses even if their weights change.
Quote
Is it possible that gaseous atoms are different to solid state atoms?
No, the difference is that there are far fewer atoms per unit volume in a gas than in a liquid or solid.
Quote
Gaseous atoms quite clearly are invisible where solid state atoms are visible. There must be a difference.
Not always. Nitrogen dioxide is red-brown, chlorine is yellow-green, ozone is pale blue, bromine vapor is bright red and iodine vapor is bright purple.
Quote
p.s Why do gaseous atoms not form a dense mass by gravity?
They do. That's what stars are.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2018 20:44:18
I am about 99.9% sure that gravity is polarity related.On what basis?
Post by: guest39538 on 21/03/2018 14:30:59
I am about 99.9% sure that gravity is polarity related.On what basis?
On the basis that opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. On the basis that opposite polarities works for gravity except for a few small glitches that need ironing out. Polarity is the closest candidate in being the possible.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2018 19:47:50
On the basis that opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.OK, so your basis is false.
We know that uncharged things attract one another - Cavendish did the first "laboratory" experiment on this ages ago.
You seem to be claiming it's true because you think it's true.
That's not science.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/03/2018 21:54:02
I don't think anything, I am looking at what the physics does. The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.On the basis that opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.OK, so your basis is false.
We know that uncharged things attract one another - Cavendish did the first "laboratory" experiment on this ages ago.
You seem to be claiming it's true because you think it's true.
That's not science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/03/2018 20:33:49
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/03/2018 22:01:24
Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/03/2018 22:15:52
Nonsense.Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
Post by: guest39538 on 22/03/2018 22:32:39
Really ? You are saying atoms do not have two opposite polarities as properties?Nonsense.Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
Post by: The Spoon on 22/03/2018 22:53:08
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2018 18:59:06
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
Every atom is composed of a nucleus and one or more electrons bound to the nucleus. The nucleus is made of one or more protons and typically a similar number of neutrons. Protons and neutrons are called nucleons. More than 99.94% of an atom's mass is in the nucleus. The protons have a positive electric charge, the electrons have a negative electric charge, and the neutrons have no electric charge. If the number of protons and electrons are equal, that atom is electrically neutral. If an atom has more or fewer electrons than protons, then it has an overall negative or positive charge, respectively, and it is called an ion.Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2018 19:02:47
Simple- never learn when you get told that you are wrong.Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2018 18:04:35
Told they are wrong does not equate to proven wrong.Simple- never learn when you get told that you are wrong.Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2018 18:10:16
I have to explain why some sub atomic particles with no net charge are still attracted, the answer is simple, they are attracted to the atomic particles charge the same as charge is attracted to none charged things but in reverse,
In simple terms, every sub atomic particle you can think up is attracted to the atoms properties of two opposite polarities.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2018 18:20:55
abn.jpg (29.64 kB . 740x464 - viewed 3923 times)0 net Q ≠ 0 net F
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2018 18:44:18
Thanks for the correctionTold they are wrong does not equate to proven wrong.Simple- never learn when you get told that you are wrong.Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
Simple- never learn whenWow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2018 18:48:01
Apart from you saying nonsense or it is wrong, you have not proved me wrong about time and you have not proved me wrong about my gravity idea. They are two objectively strong ideas.Thanks for the correctionTold they are wrong does not equate to proven wrong.Simple- never learn when you get told that you are wrong.Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.Simple- never learn whenWow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.you get toldit is proven that you are wrong.
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/03/2018 19:01:25
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.Every atom is composed of a nucleus and one or more electrons bound to the nucleus. The nucleus is made of one or more protons and typically a similar number of neutrons. Protons and neutrons are called nucleons. More than 99.94% of an atom's mass is in the nucleus. The protons have a positive electric charge, the electrons have a negative electric charge, and the neutrons have no electric charge. If the number of protons and electrons are equal, that atom is electrically neutral. If an atom has more or fewer electrons than protons, then it has an overall negative or positive charge, respectively, and it is called an ion.Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
Careful ... you are in danger of making sense. That will never prolong the argument and I know you love a good argument.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2018 19:16:46
Iol , I do love a good argument, but most of all I love it if somebody can prove me wrong in a notion, then I can give up on that notion. I have to break through somewhere to exist on Wiki, then I will be happy. :DWow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.Every atom is composed of a nucleus and one or more electrons bound to the nucleus. The nucleus is made of one or more protons and typically a similar number of neutrons. Protons and neutrons are called nucleons. More than 99.94% of an atom's mass is in the nucleus. The protons have a positive electric charge, the electrons have a negative electric charge, and the neutrons have no electric charge. If the number of protons and electrons are equal, that atom is electrically neutral. If an atom has more or fewer electrons than protons, then it has an overall negative or positive charge, respectively, and it is called an ion.Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....Because opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.I don't think anything,The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
Careful ... you are in danger of making sense. That will never prolong the argument and I know you love a good argument.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2018 13:49:23
Apart from you saying nonsense or it is wrong, you have not proved me wrong ...
I have repeatedly shown that you are wrong.
So have others.
The atom is the neutron.No.
The neutron has a half life of 881.5 seconds.
The hydrogen atom does not.
...
On the basis that opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.OK, so your basis is false.
We know that uncharged things attract one another - Cavendish did the first "laboratory" experiment on this ages ago.
You seem to be claiming it's true because you think it's true.
That's not science.
(-e) + (+1e) = n
OK, that's clear- but it's wrong.
In the real world
(-e) + (+1e) = a pair of gamma rays
ol , I do love a good argument, but most of all I love it if somebody can prove me wrong in a notion, then I can give up on that notion.But that is clearly what you refuse to do.
You don't give up, you keep on trolling.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/03/2018 18:33:39
I have repeatedly shown that you are wrong.Really, when was this then in your imagination?
So have others
You have proved nothing and all's you ever do is say I proved you wrong or nonsense when you have done nothing of the such.
Your idea of proving somebody wrong is quoting a wiki page, other than that you have no science skill set.
You act a bit like Police and force your ''statutes'' of Wiki on people, people are waking up and you just don't like it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/03/2018 20:06:20
Really, when was this then in your imagination?No, it was in this post.
Apart from you saying nonsense or it is wrong, you have not proved me wrong ...
I have repeatedly shown that you are wrong.
So have others.The atom is the neutron.No.
The neutron has a half life of 881.5 seconds.
The hydrogen atom does not.
...On the basis that opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.OK, so your basis is false.
We know that uncharged things attract one another - Cavendish did the first "laboratory" experiment on this ages ago.
You seem to be claiming it's true because you think it's true.
That's not science.(-e) + (+1e) = n
OK, that's clear- but it's wrong.
In the real world
(-e) + (+1e) = a pair of gamma raysol , I do love a good argument, but most of all I love it if somebody can prove me wrong in a notion, then I can give up on that notion.But that is clearly what you refuse to do.
You don't give up, you keep on trolling.
Post by: guest39538 on 26/03/2018 21:05:01
We know that uncharged things attract one another - Cavendish did the first "laboratory" experiment on this ages ago.
You seem to be claiming it's true because you think it's true.
That's not science.
Bangs head against walls, I know of the Cavendish experiment, I know Neutral things are attracted to neutral things because they are uncharged, I have been telling you this for like ever now,
or were you secretly helping me ?
Prove gravity is not
1) Charged things are attracted to uncharged things (neutral).
2) Uncharged things (Neutral) is attracted to uncharged things (neutral),
Post by: guest39538 on 26/03/2018 22:06:02
If A→←B and B→←A then A→←A,B and B→←A,B then must A,B→←A,B
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/03/2018 22:39:37
know Neutral things are attracted to neutral things because they are uncharged,Non sequitur.
They are attracted to eachother because they have mass.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/03/2018 22:40:11
Logical argument
If A→←B and B→←A then A→←A,B and B→←A,B then must A,B→←A,B
Nope, word salad.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 08:43:10
They are attracted to each other because of something?know Neutral things are attracted to neutral things because they are uncharged,Non sequitur.
They are attracted to eachother because they have mass.
Mass is the equivalent of something , mass itself is meaningless, kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.
From now on I am not going to take any crap from the likes of you, you have poor thinking skills and are not worthy of my brilliance. So come back when you have learnt some science,
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 08:47:41
Logical argument
If A→←B and B→←A then A→←A,B and B→←A,B then must A,B→←A,B
Nope, word salad.
Quite obvious you have never done an I.Q test, if you think the above is nonsense then you simply do not have the I.Q to read it.
Post by: The Spoon on 27/03/2018 13:14:31
You do speak a lot of crap dont you? You really don't know the difference between force and mass? Mass as has been pointed out before is a measure of the amount of material in a body. Force is a measure of interaction between bodies. This is why the force applied by a 1kg weight falling will vary with height it is falling from. See here:They are attracted to each other because of something?know Neutral things are attracted to neutral things because they are uncharged,Non sequitur.
They are attracted to eachother because they have mass.
Mass is the equivalent of something , mass itself is meaningless, kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.
From now on I am not going to take any crap from the likes of you, you have poor thinking skills and are not worthy of my brilliance. So come back when you have learnt some science,
http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/faqs/what-are-the-differences-between-mass,-weight,-force-and-load-(faq-mass-and-density)
I suspect you are now just trolling with your post above, going on about your 'brilliance'. Does this include mocking people with brain tumours?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 19:19:00
You do speak a lot of crap dont you? You really don't know the difference between force and mass? Mass as has been pointed out before is a measure of the amount of material in a body. Force is a measure of interaction between bodies. This is why the force applied by a 1kg weight falling will vary with height it is falling from. See here:They are attracted to each other because of something?know Neutral things are attracted to neutral things because they are uncharged,Non sequitur.
They are attracted to eachother because they have mass.
Mass is the equivalent of something , mass itself is meaningless, kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.
From now on I am not going to take any crap from the likes of you, you have poor thinking skills and are not worthy of my brilliance. So come back when you have learnt some science,
http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/faqs/what-are-the-differences-between-mass,-weight,-force-and-load-(faq-mass-and-density)
I suspect you are now just trolling with your post above, going on about your 'brilliance'. Does this include mocking people with brain tumours?
Quite obviously your subjective argument is frivolous litigation, repeating Wiki does not change the very fact, how stupid history was to create so many mistakes about science.
You can keep repeating these mistakes all day because you preach this rubbish literally and your religion is fixed by your education and I am finding it rather amusing how stupid most of the world is.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/03/2018 19:19:26
It may be "obvious", but it's not true.Logical argument
If A→←B and B→←A then A→←A,B and B→←A,B then must A,B→←A,B
Nope, word salad.
Quite obvious you have never done an I.Q test, ...
Which makes it clear that you can't recognise the truth when you see it.
That explains a lot.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/03/2018 19:22:27
kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.Actually, he's right.
Kg is a unit of mass and Newton is a unit of force.
They really are different.
I'm still 70Kg on the Moon but my weight is about a sixth of the 700 or so Newtons I weigh on Earth
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 19:31:32
Lmao , 70 kg on the moon is not 70 kg on the earth. The material has less weight of gravity acting on it, there is less force pulling down the scales , therefore there will be less mass measured on the moon, because volume is a measure of material.kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.Actually, he's right.
Kg is a unit of mass and Newton is a unit of force.
They really are different.
I'm still 70Kg on the Moon but my weight is about a sixth of the 700 or so Newtons I weigh on Earth
Mass is an equivalent to Newtons, and I am right not MR Moon
Post by: The Spoon on 27/03/2018 19:36:33
So, you have demonstrated that you also don't know what the difference between mass and weight is you utter donkey.Lmao , 70 kg on the moon is not 70 kg on the earth. The material has less weight of gravity acting on it, there is less force pulling down the scales , therefore there will be less mass measured on the moon, because volume is a measure of material.kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.Actually, he's right.
Kg is a unit of mass and Newton is a unit of force.
They really are different.
I'm still 70Kg on the Moon but my weight is about a sixth of the 700 or so Newtons I weigh on Earth
Mass is an equivalent to Newtons, and I am right not MR Moon
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 19:39:30
NO, I know what the difference is according to ''you'' , but guess what? you are still wrong and making things up .So, you have demonstrated that you also don't know what the difference between mass and weight is you utter donkey.Lmao , 70 kg on the moon is not 70 kg on the earth. The material has less weight of gravity acting on it, there is less force pulling down the scales , therefore there will be less mass measured on the moon, because volume is a measure of material.kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.Actually, he's right.
Kg is a unit of mass and Newton is a unit of force.
They really are different.
I'm still 70Kg on the Moon but my weight is about a sixth of the 700 or so Newtons I weigh on Earth
Mass is an equivalent to Newtons, and I am right not MR Moon
Post by: The Spoon on 27/03/2018 19:43:47
Oh do grow up. The internationally accepted definition doesnt fit you ridiculous world view so you claim it is wrong? Who are you? Humpty dumpty?NO, I know what the difference is according to ''you'' , but guess what? you are still wrong and making things up .So, you have demonstrated that you also don't know what the difference between mass and weight is you utter donkey.Lmao , 70 kg on the moon is not 70 kg on the earth. The material has less weight of gravity acting on it, there is less force pulling down the scales , therefore there will be less mass measured on the moon, because volume is a measure of material.kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.Actually, he's right.
Kg is a unit of mass and Newton is a unit of force.
They really are different.
I'm still 70Kg on the Moon but my weight is about a sixth of the 700 or so Newtons I weigh on Earth
Mass is an equivalent to Newtons, and I am right not MR Moon
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 19:45:12
Oh do grow up. The internationally accepted definition doesnt fit you ridiculous world view so you claim it is wrong? Who are you? Humpty dumpty?NO, I know what the difference is according to ''you'' , but guess what? you are still wrong and making things up .So, you have demonstrated that you also don't know what the difference between mass and weight is you utter donkey.Lmao , 70 kg on the moon is not 70 kg on the earth. The material has less weight of gravity acting on it, there is less force pulling down the scales , therefore there will be less mass measured on the moon, because volume is a measure of material.kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.Actually, he's right.
Kg is a unit of mass and Newton is a unit of force.
They really are different.
I'm still 70Kg on the Moon but my weight is about a sixth of the 700 or so Newtons I weigh on Earth
Mass is an equivalent to Newtons, and I am right not MR Moon
The internationally accepted definition doesn't fit reality, try again Mr Spoon . With all due respect, they are wrong and trying to glorify science in being something it is not.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 19:46:23
(F=ma) = (m=Fa )
mass in kg is a result on a set of scales, the result is created by the force being imposed on the object.
Post by: The Spoon on 27/03/2018 19:51:05
You do speak a lot of crap dont you? You really don't know the difference between force and mass? Mass as has been pointed out before is a measure of the amount of material in a body. Force is a measure of interaction between bodies. This is why the force applied by a 1kg weight falling will vary with height it is falling from. See here:They are attracted to each other because of something?know Neutral things are attracted to neutral things because they are uncharged,Non sequitur.
They are attracted to eachother because they have mass.
Mass is the equivalent of something , mass itself is meaningless, kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.
From now on I am not going to take any crap from the likes of you, you have poor thinking skills and are not worthy of my brilliance. So come back when you have learnt some science,
http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/faqs/what-are-the-differences-between-mass,-weight,-force-and-load-(faq-mass-and-density)
I suspect you are now just trolling with your post above, going on about your 'brilliance'. Does this include mocking people with brain tumours?
Quite obviously your subjective argument is frivolous litigation, repeating Wiki does not change the very fact, how stupid history was to create so many mistakes about science.
You can keep repeating these mistakes all day because you preach this rubbish literally and your religion is fixed by your education and I am finding it rather amusing how stupid most of the world is.
Quite obviously your subjective argument is frivolous litigation, repeating Wiki does not change the very fact, how stupid history was to create so many mistakes about science.My arugument is frivilous litigation? What is that? A term you have picked up on a legal forum that you think sounds impressive so you thought you would missapply it? Do you think it makes you sound like a gentleman scientist? It doesn't it just displays your very evident ignorance.
You can keep repeating these mistakes all day because you preach this rubbish literally and your religion is fixed by your education and I am finding it rather amusing how stupid most of the world is.
The link I gave you wasn't Wiki either, it is from the National Physical Laboratory. Ironic as the only source of information you ever quote is is wikipedia. Good job that definition is right too as it my make my job difficult if not... Still, I suppose that wouldnt affect you would it? I still think you are despicable for mocking people with brain tumours by the way.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 19:56:00
A brain Tuna is not a brain tumour is it now, the only mocking there is your own subjective interpretation and change of words.You do speak a lot of crap dont you? You really don't know the difference between force and mass? Mass as has been pointed out before is a measure of the amount of material in a body. Force is a measure of interaction between bodies. This is why the force applied by a 1kg weight falling will vary with height it is falling from. See here:They are attracted to each other because of something?know Neutral things are attracted to neutral things because they are uncharged,Non sequitur.
They are attracted to eachother because they have mass.
Mass is the equivalent of something , mass itself is meaningless, kg is the result of force, kg is just replacing Newtons but means the exact same thing as Newtons. If you say any other than this , you are a bare face liar, and I will tell anyone who thinks with such stupidity the same thing.
From now on I am not going to take any crap from the likes of you, you have poor thinking skills and are not worthy of my brilliance. So come back when you have learnt some science,
http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/faqs/what-are-the-differences-between-mass,-weight,-force-and-load-(faq-mass-and-density)
I suspect you are now just trolling with your post above, going on about your 'brilliance'. Does this include mocking people with brain tumours?
Quite obviously your subjective argument is frivolous litigation, repeating Wiki does not change the very fact, how stupid history was to create so many mistakes about science.
You can keep repeating these mistakes all day because you preach this rubbish literally and your religion is fixed by your education and I am finding it rather amusing how stupid most of the world is.Quite obviously your subjective argument is frivolous litigation, repeating Wiki does not change the very fact, how stupid history was to create so many mistakes about science.My arugument is frivilous litigation? What is that? A term you have picked up on a legal forum that you think sounds impressive so you thought you would missapply it? Do you think it makes you sound like a gentleman scientist? It doesn't it just displays your very evident ignorance.
You can keep repeating these mistakes all day because you preach this rubbish literally and your religion is fixed by your education and I am finding it rather amusing how stupid most of the world is.
The link I gave you wasn't Wiki either, it is from the National Physical Laboratory. Ironic as the only source of information you ever quote is is wikipedia. Good job that definition is right too as it my make my job difficult if not... Still, I suppose that wouldnt affect you would it? I still think you are despicable for mocking people with brain tumours by the way.
Frivolous litigation is when I know the defences , defence, I know everything you can say on mass, I also know this is wrong and show why it is wrong, like most of the frivolous litigation incorrect science you teach.
Mass is a result in kg on a set of scales, What makes this result? quite clearly the force between two objects. No force no mass simple.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 20:00:50
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/03/2018 20:03:11
No force no mass simple.Simple; but wrong.
There's an entire wiki page dedicated to explaining it to people who don't understand the difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight
Try learning- it can make you feel good.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 20:04:58
I do not need to learn anything, I already know your frivolous litigation, it does not matter how many times you repeat and try to insult my intelligence, the fact you are wrong will not change.No force no mass simple.Simple; but wrong.
There's an entire wiki page dedicated to explaining it to people who don't understand the difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight
Try learning- it can make you feel good.
Now if you want to agree it is the same but used for different things, then I am happy to accept that.
Post by: The Spoon on 27/03/2018 20:05:20
A brain Tuna is not a brain tumour is it now, the only mocking there is your own subjective interpretation and change of words.Making posts pretending to type in a way that somebody with a mental impairment caused by a tumour is mocking them, in the same way as Trump mocked the disabled.
Frivolous litigation is when I know the defences , defence, I know everything you can say on mass, I also know this is wrong and show why it is wrong, like most of the frivolous litigation incorrect science you teach.
Mass is a result in kg on a set of scales, What makes this result? quite clearly the force between two objects. No force no mass simple.
In law frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on lawsuits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won. This is a science forum in case you didnt notice not a court of law.
Mass is shown on a set of scales. Nobody else in the world accepts your definition. It is rather like claiming a potato is the sky.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/03/2018 20:08:51
As far as I'm aware, nobody here is involved in litigation.I do not need to learn anything, I already know your frivolous litigation, it does not matter how many times you repeat and try to insult my intelligence, the fact you are wrong will not change.No force no mass simple.Simple; but wrong.
There's an entire wiki page dedicated to explaining it to people who don't understand the difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight
Try learning- it can make you feel good.
Now if you want to agree it is the same but used for different things, then I am happy to accept that.
I'm certainly not.
You should learn what the word means.
Oh, I forgot you said "I do not need to learn anything,"
Well, technically, it's true.
You can go on looking like a twit.
Enjoy.
BTW, among the reasons you are wrong is that this
Mass is a result in kg on a set of scales,is plainly wrong in zero gravity.
Post by: The Spoon on 27/03/2018 20:08:58
You have demonstrated constantly that you do. Look, he has found a new phrase.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 20:10:36
There is a likely situation where I might have autism and be a higher functioning autistic person. I have brain dis-functions so If I want to take the mick out of myself I will.A brain Tuna is not a brain tumour is it now, the only mocking there is your own subjective interpretation and change of words.Making posts pretending to type in a way that somebody with a mental impairment caused by a tumour is mocking them, in the same way as Trump mocked the disabled.
Frivolous litigation is when I know the defences , defence, I know everything you can say on mass, I also know this is wrong and show why it is wrong, like most of the frivolous litigation incorrect science you teach.
Mass is a result in kg on a set of scales, What makes this result? quite clearly the force between two objects. No force no mass simple.
In law frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on lawsuits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won. This is a science forum in case you didnt notice not a court of law.
Mass is shown on a set of scales. Nobody else in the world accepts your definition. It is rather like claiming a potato is the sky.
Mass is shown on a set of scales, and you do not speak for the world, if people were aware of me and my notions in full, science would become a laughing stock.
Mass is shown on a set of scales like you agree, so what gives the object its mass?
I think objectively you will find the answer is force my friend.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 20:14:14
'I do not need to learn anything, I already know your frivolous litigation'Incorrect, you have demonstrated constantly that you can not think beyond your subjective education. You can not have a discussion about an idea, you do not know how to discuss an idea. Saying a person is wrong just on the basis of posting present information , the information that I am showing is wrong, is not discussing my friend and not looking why it is wrong.
You have demonstrated constantly that you do. Look, he has found a new phrase.
Post by: The Spoon on 27/03/2018 20:17:45
You did not define mass, it was defined long before your sad existence and no matter how much you try to change the definition, you will always be wrong. Mass and equations using force are used in all sorts of applications in engineering etc and have been shown to work - unlike you.There is a likely situation where I might have autism and be a higher functioning autistic person. I have brain dis-functions so If I want to take the mick out of myself I will.A brain Tuna is not a brain tumour is it now, the only mocking there is your own subjective interpretation and change of words.Making posts pretending to type in a way that somebody with a mental impairment caused by a tumour is mocking them, in the same way as Trump mocked the disabled.
Frivolous litigation is when I know the defences , defence, I know everything you can say on mass, I also know this is wrong and show why it is wrong, like most of the frivolous litigation incorrect science you teach.
Mass is a result in kg on a set of scales, What makes this result? quite clearly the force between two objects. No force no mass simple.
In law frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on lawsuits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won. This is a science forum in case you didnt notice not a court of law.
Mass is shown on a set of scales. Nobody else in the world accepts your definition. It is rather like claiming a potato is the sky.
Mass is shown on a set of scales, and you do not speak for the world, if people were aware of me and my notions in full, science would become a laughing stock.
Mass is shown on a set of scales like you agree, so what gives the object its mass?
I think objectively you will find the answer is force my friend.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/03/2018 20:20:49
if people were aware of me and my notions in full, science would become a laughing stock.
There are a few scientists looking at this.
We are laughing at you.
Even if you think you are right about science (spoiler alert- you are not), surely you recognise that, by misusing phrases like "frivolous litigation", you prove that you ought to learn what they actually mean?
Post by: The Spoon on 27/03/2018 20:26:08
It is not a discussion about an idea though is it though? It you crowing about universally accepted definitions of basic physics being wrong because you are too lazy to actually learn anything.'I do not need to learn anything, I already know your frivolous litigation'Incorrect, you have demonstrated constantly that you can not think beyond your subjective education. You can not have a discussion about an idea, you do not know how to discuss an idea. Saying a person is wrong just on the basis of posting present information , the information that I am showing is wrong, is not discussing my friend and not looking why it is wrong.
You have demonstrated constantly that you do. Look, he has found a new phrase.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 20:32:56
You are making the mistake of looking at me and me being wrong, instead of looking why things might be wrong. Do you never question what you learn?if people were aware of me and my notions in full, science would become a laughing stock.
There are a few scientists looking at this.
We are laughing at you.
Even if you think you are right about science (spoiler alert- you are not), surely you recognise that, by misusing phrases like "frivolous litigation", you prove that you ought to learn what they actually mean?
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 20:34:31
What would you like to know about mass or force in your terms?It is not a discussion about an idea though is it though? It you crowing about universally accepted definitions of basic physics being wrong because you are too lazy to actually learn anything.'I do not need to learn anything, I already know your frivolous litigation'Incorrect, you have demonstrated constantly that you can not think beyond your subjective education. You can not have a discussion about an idea, you do not know how to discuss an idea. Saying a person is wrong just on the basis of posting present information , the information that I am showing is wrong, is not discussing my friend and not looking why it is wrong.
You have demonstrated constantly that you do. Look, he has found a new phrase.
I have learnt my friend , except I question what I learn if it is not logically true . You are preaching and not doing any science.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 20:35:58
You did not define mass either, it is not your mistake , it is histories mistake, you can't see it wrong because it is what you learnt and think is correct.You did not define mass, it was defined long before your sad existence and no matter how much you try to change the definition, you will always be wrong. Mass and equations using force are used in all sorts of applications in engineering etc and have been shown to work - unlike you.There is a likely situation where I might have autism and be a higher functioning autistic person. I have brain dis-functions so If I want to take the mick out of myself I will.A brain Tuna is not a brain tumour is it now, the only mocking there is your own subjective interpretation and change of words.Making posts pretending to type in a way that somebody with a mental impairment caused by a tumour is mocking them, in the same way as Trump mocked the disabled.
Frivolous litigation is when I know the defences , defence, I know everything you can say on mass, I also know this is wrong and show why it is wrong, like most of the frivolous litigation incorrect science you teach.
Mass is a result in kg on a set of scales, What makes this result? quite clearly the force between two objects. No force no mass simple.
In law frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on lawsuits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won. This is a science forum in case you didnt notice not a court of law.
Mass is shown on a set of scales. Nobody else in the world accepts your definition. It is rather like claiming a potato is the sky.
Mass is shown on a set of scales, and you do not speak for the world, if people were aware of me and my notions in full, science would become a laughing stock.
Mass is shown on a set of scales like you agree, so what gives the object its mass?
I think objectively you will find the answer is force my friend.
Post by: The Spoon on 27/03/2018 20:47:25
Dont be such a condescending idiot. Whilst I didnt define it, the definition is accepted universally. I dont see the point of your argument, other than acting like a rather foolish child trying to show how clever he is.You did not define mass either, it is not your mistake , it is histories mistake, you can't see it wrong because it is what you learnt and think is correct.You did not define mass, it was defined long before your sad existence and no matter how much you try to change the definition, you will always be wrong. Mass and equations using force are used in all sorts of applications in engineering etc and have been shown to work - unlike you.There is a likely situation where I might have autism and be a higher functioning autistic person. I have brain dis-functions so If I want to take the mick out of myself I will.A brain Tuna is not a brain tumour is it now, the only mocking there is your own subjective interpretation and change of words.Making posts pretending to type in a way that somebody with a mental impairment caused by a tumour is mocking them, in the same way as Trump mocked the disabled.
Frivolous litigation is when I know the defences , defence, I know everything you can say on mass, I also know this is wrong and show why it is wrong, like most of the frivolous litigation incorrect science you teach.
Mass is a result in kg on a set of scales, What makes this result? quite clearly the force between two objects. No force no mass simple.
In law frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on lawsuits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won. This is a science forum in case you didnt notice not a court of law.
Mass is shown on a set of scales. Nobody else in the world accepts your definition. It is rather like claiming a potato is the sky.
Mass is shown on a set of scales, and you do not speak for the world, if people were aware of me and my notions in full, science would become a laughing stock.
Mass is shown on a set of scales like you agree, so what gives the object its mass?
I think objectively you will find the answer is force my friend.
Interesting you are claiming to autism now. You seem to claim to have various disorders at different times to garner sympathy.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 20:53:17
Everyone on forums as being telling me for years I am nuts, quite clearly I do not think the same way as the majority of people. I had speech therapy as a child, my hand writing is awful and I verbally sound mumbled. So after looking at various illness from tunas to insanity, I finally came across higher functioning autism, this seems to fit me and is a likely self diagnosis.Dont be such a condescending idiot. Whilst I didnt define it, the definition is accepted universally. I dont see the point of your argument, other than acting like a rather foolish child trying to show how clever he is.You did not define mass either, it is not your mistake , it is histories mistake, you can't see it wrong because it is what you learnt and think is correct.You did not define mass, it was defined long before your sad existence and no matter how much you try to change the definition, you will always be wrong. Mass and equations using force are used in all sorts of applications in engineering etc and have been shown to work - unlike you.There is a likely situation where I might have autism and be a higher functioning autistic person. I have brain dis-functions so If I want to take the mick out of myself I will.A brain Tuna is not a brain tumour is it now, the only mocking there is your own subjective interpretation and change of words.Making posts pretending to type in a way that somebody with a mental impairment caused by a tumour is mocking them, in the same way as Trump mocked the disabled.
Frivolous litigation is when I know the defences , defence, I know everything you can say on mass, I also know this is wrong and show why it is wrong, like most of the frivolous litigation incorrect science you teach.
Mass is a result in kg on a set of scales, What makes this result? quite clearly the force between two objects. No force no mass simple.
In law frivolous litigation is the practice of starting or carrying on lawsuits that, due to their lack of legal merit, have little to no chance of being won. This is a science forum in case you didnt notice not a court of law.
Mass is shown on a set of scales. Nobody else in the world accepts your definition. It is rather like claiming a potato is the sky.
Mass is shown on a set of scales, and you do not speak for the world, if people were aware of me and my notions in full, science would become a laughing stock.
Mass is shown on a set of scales like you agree, so what gives the object its mass?
I think objectively you will find the answer is force my friend.
Interesting you are claiming to autism now. You seem to claim to have various disorders at different times to garner sympathy.
So no I am not after any sympathy, I am computing my possible illness out loud.
You don't see the point of the argument because you can't see in your mind the argument the way I see it. I see it differently to you.
p.s anxiety also , I have beta blockers.
Post by: The Spoon on 27/03/2018 21:08:59
Self diagnosed then. Guessed as much.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 21:17:20
Yeah, of course you do. Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?Self diagnosed to a point of what the internet says. I do not know for sure, that would be illogical. This could be true or I could just be really smart beyond every bodies ability. I also know that could be Dunning and Kruger affect, it seems a very Paradox question to answer. Cry wolf? There is plenty of evidence of my different thinking and often in cognitive sentence structure.
Self diagnosed then. Guessed as much.
I have to concentrate really hard to write cognitive sentences, I have to edit often.
Anyway , if you want to discuss mass v Newtons can we approach this with a blank canvass?
This means forget what you think you know and be neither side of a fence. Be the fence.
Mass is a measure of the force being imposed on the object on the scales .
Mass is a measure True
of the force being imposed True
on the object on the scales True
If I were to hold the object on the scales with equal and opposite force, the scales would measure m=0kg
Post by: The Spoon on 27/03/2018 21:24:21
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 21:27:56
I'm out. I think the quote from George Carlin is most appropriate here:You are preaching your subjective belief sir, I am looking at objective facts, it is not my belief. You will always be wrong unless you are willing to learn. Maybe you suffer from Dunning and Kruger and do not see me as your equal as I see you?
“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 27/03/2018 21:39:06
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2018 02:18:56
Incorrect, you have demonstrated constantly that you can not think beyond your subjective education.Nope.
My education- subjective or otherwise- didn't train me to deal with idiots online.
It couldn't aspire to do so, given that it finished in 1988, at which point there essentially wasn't an internet.
So the facts show that you are wrong..
I await with mild amusement your shift in reality which will let you pretend you were right all along.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/03/2018 08:02:48
You know what? I am not going to reply to you ever again because you are just too stupid to think so I give up talking to you .Incorrect, you have demonstrated constantly that you can not think beyond your subjective education.Nope.
My education- subjective or otherwise- didn't train me to deal with idiots online.
It couldn't aspire to do so, given that it finished in 1988, at which point there essentially wasn't an internet.
So the facts show that you are wrong..
I await with mild amusement your shift in reality which will let you pretend you were right all along.
Do not reply because I will no longer answer you Mr Troll.
It is people like you who set out to hamper sciences progression.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/03/2018 12:47:09
So, you have resorted to the school playground tactic of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "La la la I'm not listening".You know what? I am not going to reply to you ever again because you are just too stupid to think so I give up talking to you .Incorrect, you have demonstrated constantly that you can not think beyond your subjective education.Nope.
My education- subjective or otherwise- didn't train me to deal with idiots online.
It couldn't aspire to do so, given that it finished in 1988, at which point there essentially wasn't an internet.
So the facts show that you are wrong..
I await with mild amusement your shift in reality which will let you pretend you were right all along.
Do not reply because I will no longer answer you Mr Troll.
It is people like you who set out to hamper sciences progression.
It's slightly more ironic since that's what you are accusing the rest of us of doing.
The difference is that we have evidence.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/04/2018 11:18:17
ggg.jpg (23.89 kB . 740x464 - viewed 3479 times)Post by: guest45734 on 03/04/2018 12:13:11
Mass is a measure of the force being imposed on the object on the scales .
Mass is a measure True
of the force being imposed True
on the object on the scales True
Oh man! I started reading through this thread and think you may have misunderstood a few things, or be a misunderstood individual.
Picking on the last point from the 39 pages of this thread.
Inertia affects all objects, and all objects have mass. The mass of an objects demonstrates how much matter is within the object. The larger the mass of an object the more inertia it has. Finally, the weight of an object has to do with the the amount of gravity that is being pulled down upon it
ie you measure weight on scales(kg) not mass (N), although if you know how strong the gravity is you can calculate the mass in newtons.
You seem to have attracted a lot of flack, good luck to you with N theory.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/04/2018 13:54:59
and think you may have misunderstood a few thingsTo the contrary, science has misunderstood a few things and you have just repeated their misunderstanding that does not correct the misunderstanding.
Mass is a measure of the constant acceleration the object is experiencing at relative rest caused by the force of gravity.
The object is falling while on the scales that is why the objects push down to give a measure on the scales.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/04/2018 14:01:32
Post by: guest45734 on 03/04/2018 14:11:36
I do not have any obsessive desire or compulsion to prove N theory right wrong, it is clearly beyond my understanding of the universe, so will not comment further.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/04/2018 14:14:35
No worries , it is complex.
I do not have any obsessive desire or compulsion to prove N theory right wrong, it is clearly beyond my understanding of the universe, so will not comment further.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/04/2018 18:53:59
Incorrect, you have demonstrated constantly that you can not think beyond your subjective education.Nope.
My education- subjective or otherwise- didn't train me to deal with idiots online.
It couldn't aspire to do so, given that it finished in 1988, at which point there essentially wasn't an internet.
So the facts show that you are wrong..
I await with mild amusement your shift in reality which will let you pretend you were right all along.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/04/2018 20:21:45
So what qualifies you to define an idiot if you were not trained in how to deal with idiots?Incorrect, you have demonstrated constantly that you can not think beyond your subjective education.Nope.
My education- subjective or otherwise- didn't train me to deal with idiots online.
It couldn't aspire to do so, given that it finished in 1988, at which point there essentially wasn't an internet.
So the facts show that you are wrong..
I await with mild amusement your shift in reality which will let you pretend you were right all along.
An idiot would be your subjective opinion yet again as you admitted being untrained in dealing with idiots so therefore have no qualification to call somebody an idiot.
I can teach you how to deal with idiots if you like and the way is
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/04/2018 02:39:07
So what qualifies you to define an idiotI didn't.
An idiot would be your subjective opinionNope; I have evidence.
An idiot would be your subjective opinion yet again as you admitted being untrained in dealing with idiots so therefore have no qualification to call somebody an idiot.I can recognise German.
I can't speak it.
I can recognise idiocy.
I was never taught to deal with it on line.
(BTW- you seem to be engaging in intellectual dishonesty again by failing to make the point about my education referring to " idiots on line".)
I can teach you how to deal with idiots if you like and the way is
As seems to happen a lot, your post makes no sense. It promises, but fails to deliver.
Post by: guest39538 on 08/04/2018 22:04:25
+ 
= 
= 
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/04/2018 20:37:02
ΔZPE=Why do you think S is always 1?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/04/2018 10:15:33
Post by: opportunity on 10/04/2018 10:48:19
Post by: guest39538 on 10/04/2018 10:53:54
The Box, you're either promoting something or discrediting something. Can you be clearer?
S = 0.5 + 0.5 ' = 1
S + S = 1 because
Post by: opportunity on 10/04/2018 11:00:38
Post by: guest39538 on 10/04/2018 11:23:04
Is there an actual "physical application" to your ideas or more of the tangled web?I am looking for ''Gods'' equation because that is the question I am compelled to look for an answer too. So yes, there will be or should be physical application.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/04/2018 11:28:59
S = 0.5 + 0.5' = 1
1 = t
t + t = 1
Post by: opportunity on 10/04/2018 11:30:21
The one constantly deleted?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/04/2018 11:32:33
God's equation?yes
The one constantly deleted?
1 - 1 = 0
added - that may be
1 - 0.5 = 0
Post by: guest39538 on 10/04/2018 11:40:00
Ok.Anyway I have to go Liverpool and need to go catch a train, will be back on later.
I'm sure God means no harm.
Maybe a fundamental equation "could" invoke the need to repress, as much as the idea of God has been a mystery for so long. Yet if Mary is the mother of God, and Christ is God, we have a long wait for "God". Why would Christ return without Mary?
God's equation is the rudiment of existence, not the existence of God.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2018 19:02:47
1+1= 1No it isn't.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/04/2018 23:11:41
1+1 = 1
Only in your dreams are you smarter than me
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/04/2018 21:59:58
A rain drop fell into my cup, a second raindrop fell into my cupThere are now two drops of rain in your cup.
1+1 = 1
Only in your dreams are you smarter than me
1+1=2
it seems a very realistic dream.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/04/2018 00:34:48
M + M = M and S + S = S
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2018 18:46:10
NoOK, hwy are you assuming that both M and S are zero?
M + M = M and S + S = S
Previously you said S was 1.
Are you trolling, or just really really bad at maths?
Post by: guest39538 on 13/04/2018 20:05:15
m + m = m = 1
S + S = S = 1
Where is the 0 ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/04/2018 00:27:18
1 + 1 = 1
'nuff said.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/04/2018 00:29:48
Where is the 0 ?It's the only number for which S + S =S
0 +0 =0 works
No other number does.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 01:10:52
1+1=1
1 rain drop + 1 rain drop merged does not equal 2 raindrops . It equals one .
Post by: The Spoon on 14/04/2018 09:21:59
1+1= 1Yet you post in another thread:
To answer BC's question as to whether trolling or bad at maths , obvious trolling from the self confessed 'King of the Trolls'attached is a pdf presentation proposing a hypothesis that tries to quantize gravity
1+1=2
Couldn't be more simpler
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/04/2018 12:30:41
I thought chemists suppose to know that two things merged/combined, become one.Chemists understand that when you combine two things you get something different, not the same thing.
Mathematicians understand the same thing.
In the case of raindrops, meteorologists understand that raindrops are formed from the combination of droplets that are too small to fall as rain because the up-draft in clouds keeps them airborne.
The only one who doesn't understand this seems to be you.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 13:01:54
Congrats on getting me banned elsewhere, for about the 20th time.I thought chemists suppose to know that two things merged/combined, become one.Chemists understand that when you combine two things you get something different, not the same thing.
Mathematicians understand the same thing.
In the case of raindrops, meteorologists understand that raindrops are formed from the combination of droplets that are too small to fall as rain because the up-draft in clouds keeps them airborne.
The only one who doesn't understand this seems to be you.
You must be infatuated with me.
Two drops of water that join together in a cup become one, you are so silly at times.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 13:03:24
Yeah that's right, I am king of the trolls and also the king of science because I know more than science. The end1+1= 1Yet you post in another thread:To answer BC's question as to whether trolling or bad at maths , obvious trolling from the self confessed 'King of the Trolls'attached is a pdf presentation proposing a hypothesis that tries to quantize gravity
1+1=2
Couldn't be more simpler
Go away, you and chemist are like stalkers,
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/04/2018 22:22:18
Go awayIt's very easty to stop me replying to all your posts and pointing out the holes in them.
Stop posting stuff that's full of holes.
I know more than science.If you know so much, why don't you post it instead of the trash you have posted so far?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/04/2018 22:29:46
Congrats on getting me banned elsewhere, for about the 20th time.I doubt I have got anyone banned anywhere.
I also don't think I post on anything like 20 fora.
You are not being rational.
You must be infatuated with me.No.
I just like to try to set the record straight about science by pointing out the nonsense in your posts here. This is meant to be a science forum. It would be better if you stopped cluttering it up with dross.
Two drops of water that join together in a cup become one, you are so silly at times.
And what do you think "S" is in your post?
It's conventionally used to represent entropy.
Entropy does not behave like raindrops.
Post by: guest39538 on 14/04/2018 23:23:27
And what do you think "S" is in your post?
It's conventionally used to represent entropy.
Entropy does not behave like raindrops.
S is entropy like it suppose to mean.
A raindrop is made of atoms, the atoms and the raindrop have an entropy. I suggest you do not know as much as you pretend to know.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/04/2018 09:37:51
1 + 1 = 2
So you are wrong (as usual).
I suggest you do not know as much as you pretend to know.I suggest you get a mirror.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/04/2018 02:19:27
OK, entropy follows the normal rules for arithmetic.Your not considering that two drops of water have the same viscosity so have no problem merging to become one.
1 + 1 = 2
So you are wrong (as usual).I suggest you do not know as much as you pretend to know.I suggest you get a mirror.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2018 20:03:53
I am ignoring a whole suite of measured properties and comparing entropy to the group in which it belongs.OK, entropy follows the normal rules for arithmetic.Your not considering that two drops of water have the same viscosity so have no problem merging to become one.
1 + 1 = 2
So you are wrong (as usual).I suggest you do not know as much as you pretend to know.I suggest you get a mirror.
Density, for example, is an intensive property.
A drop of water has the same density as 2 drops, or a bucketful.
Viscosity, refractive index, dielectric constant and temperature ( as well as many others) do the same.
However, entropy is an extensive property.
This has been known about for a long time; the words intensive and extensive in this context were coined about a hundred years ago.
So, as usual the problem is that I know science, but you don't.
Do you enjoy looking foolish?
If not, I suggest that you learn more and post less.
Post by: guest39538 on 27/04/2018 20:05:00
Go discover space-time cyclones now, I have told you amongst the threads what it is, I am not doing all the work , that is not fair it is not my job, I do not get paid for my time. I may be going off-line about Monday, internet going off as I am poor and my children come first, So if I do or go off before hand , I wish you all well and happiness and good luck for the future.I am ignoring a whole suite of measured properties and comparing entropy to the group in which it belongs.OK, entropy follows the normal rules for arithmetic.Your not considering that two drops of water have the same viscosity so have no problem merging to become one.
1 + 1 = 2
So you are wrong (as usual).I suggest you do not know as much as you pretend to know.I suggest you get a mirror.
Density, for example, is an intensive property.
A drop of water has the same density as 2 drops, or a bucketful.
Viscosity, refractive index, dielectric constant and temperature ( as well as many others) do the same.
However, entropy is an extensive property.
This has been known about for a long time; the words intensive and extensive in this context were coined about a hundred years ago.
So, as usual the problem is that I know science, but you don't.
Do you enjoy looking foolish?
If not, I suggest that you learn more and post less.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/04/2018 00:15:12
Go discover space-time cyclones now, I have told you amongst the threads what it is,
Liar.
Google can find no reference to the phrase.
You have not told us about it.
You are making stuff up
If you had done any work that would be apparent- it would show in the evidence you have supplied.
I am not doing all the work , that is not fair it is not my job, I do not get paid for my time.
But you have provided none. All you have done is cite yourself as evidence of your own beliefs.
My job is something else. It's nothing to do with posting here.
I post here for no reward except the satisfaction of trying to keep the dross out of the mainstream.
You have not been doing any work. I have done some.
I looked at the science regarding extensive and intensive properties.
If you had done that you wouldn't have wasted the bandwidth you did.
If you really have children who depend on you , and yet you spent time and money posting nonsense here then you did them an obvious disservice.
Only you are responsible for that.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2018 01:27:08
Liar.Nice try, I have give you enough, you does not mean you personally Mr C , you know that. It is not my fault if you can't spot the pieces I have put in threads. I had to go through loads of science jigsaw pieces to build my picture. It took over ten years.
Google can find no reference to the phrase.
You have not told us about it.
You are making stuff up
I know what I know , I happy for me, not for you or anybody else, it is my knowledge I have learnt . I am feeling quite proud of myself.
Think I am bad at ''destroying'' science, the next generation of me, my daughter who is only eleven, will be the new improved model of me. Not because I teach her my ideas, but because she is really smart. I tried to tell her earlier that time slowed down in speeds up and is called time dilation. She destroyed me in about 2 minutes using music lengths and tempos. A length is a length she said and counting fast or slow makes no difference to the length.
I tried to defend time dilation, she said no and counted fast then slow to prove me wrong. I have told her nothing of my ideas because of her education, they are going to have their hands full indeed when she goes to high school in September. She can do maths and is highly respected by her teachers, watch out future.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/04/2018 10:54:42
Nice try, I have give you enough, you does not mean you personally Mr C , you know that.It doesn't matter who googles " space-time cyclones".
So it has nothing to do with me personally.
It is not my fault if you can't spot the pieces I have put in threads.Yes it is.
Whose else could it be?
I am feeling quite proud of myself.What for?
Are you proud of trolling?
Proud of misunderstanding?
Proud of lying?
Or just proud of bragging?
she is really smart.Good for her, I wish her well.
She destroyed me in about 2 minutesSo has everyone else.
I tried to defend time dilation, she said no and counted fast then slow to prove me wrong.That suggests that you failed to explain time dilation to her.
No doubt someone will do it properly.
If she's interested I suggest you direct her to things like the Khan academy where she can find out about the real stuff, rather than your garbled, distorted version.
Even if you think the conventional view of science is hogwash, you will serve her interests best by letting her know what the conventional view is.
If you are wrong, she will be better informed about the world.
If you are right, she will know what it is that she might want to disprove.
A good part of the reason you are not taken seriously here is that you plainly don't understand the science you are seeking to undermine.
You make more mistakes than progress.
So, you are almost certainly right to say "
my daughter who is only eleven, will be the new improved model of me.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2018 18:06:44
It doesn't matter who googles " space-time cyclones".
So it has nothing to do with me personally.
I learnt to be like corporation, corporation is business. Of course you can't find anywhere on google what I know.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2018 18:07:53
I am feeling quite proud of myself.
What for?
Are you proud of trolling?
Proud of misunderstanding?
Proud of lying?
Or just proud of bragging?
Proud of learning.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2018 18:09:49
If she's interested I suggest you direct her to things like the Khan academy where she can find out about the real stuff, rather than your garbled, distorted version.I teach her nothing but life and safety in life, she will find out and can think for herself. But actually not a bad idea from you to get her to go on Khan academy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/04/2018 18:17:28
But you steadfastly refuse to do that.I am feeling quite proud of myself.
What for?
Are you proud of trolling?
Proud of misunderstanding?
Proud of lying?
Or just proud of bragging?
Proud of learning.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/04/2018 18:19:16
Of course you can't find anywhere on google what I know.
Go discover space-time cyclones now, I have told you amongst the threads what it is,
So which one do you mean?
Have you posted it, in which case Google will find it, or were you lying about posting it?
She destroyed me in about 2 minutesIt's not that hard.
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2018 18:25:33
The threads in this section Mr C, go look at the sun motion thread.Of course you can't find anywhere on google what I know.Go discover space-time cyclones now, I have told you amongst the threads what it is,
So which one do you mean?
Have you posted it, in which case Google will find it, or were you lying about posting it?She destroyed me in about 2 minutesIt's not that hard.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/04/2018 19:35:23
I looked at it before.The threads in this section Mr C, go look at the sun motion thread.Of course you can't find anywhere on google what I know.Go discover space-time cyclones now, I have told you amongst the threads what it is,
So which one do you mean?
Have you posted it, in which case Google will find it, or were you lying about posting it?She destroyed me in about 2 minutesIt's not that hard.
It didn't say anything informative.
Would you like to stop messing about and actually say something clear?
Post by: guest39538 on 28/04/2018 19:39:32
I looked at it before.The threads in this section Mr C, go look at the sun motion thread.Of course you can't find anywhere on google what I know.Go discover space-time cyclones now, I have told you amongst the threads what it is,
So which one do you mean?
Have you posted it, in which case Google will find it, or were you lying about posting it?She destroyed me in about 2 minutesIt's not that hard.
It didn't say anything informative.
Would you like to stop messing about and actually say something clear?
What makes you think I could ever post something that is literate?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2018 10:00:39
I'm not asking for literate (though that would be good)I looked at it before.The threads in this section Mr C, go look at the sun motion thread.Of course you can't find anywhere on google what I know.Go discover space-time cyclones now, I have told you amongst the threads what it is,
So which one do you mean?
Have you posted it, in which case Google will find it, or were you lying about posting it?She destroyed me in about 2 minutesIt's not that hard.
It didn't say anything informative.
Would you like to stop messing about and actually say something clear?
What makes you think I could ever post something that is literate?
I'm asking for a clear direct statement, rather than trolling.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 13:35:52
I'm asking for a clear direct statement, rather than trolling.
What is the subject of the statement that you would like clearly written ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2018 15:29:30
So, it has been so long that you have forgotten what you were talking about.
I'm asking for a clear direct statement, rather than trolling.
What is the subject of the statement that you would like clearly written ?
Probably time to close the thread.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 15:35:52
So, it has been so long that you have forgotten what you were talking about.
I'm asking for a clear direct statement, rather than trolling.
What is the subject of the statement that you would like clearly written ?
Probably time to close the thread.
The N-field and n-field is an extensive subject that covers a whole range of things. Is there any specific post you wish to ask a question about ? Or anything particular you would like me to clarify for you ?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 16:16:19
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2018 18:25:10
Or anything particular you would like me to clarify for you ?I'm not sure you have answered any questions about it thus far.
All you have done is draw unclear pictures.
Specifically, I was referring to this
Go discover space-time cyclones now, I have told you amongst the threads what it is,where I'm asking you to show us where you told us about it.
Or you could just admit you are trolling.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 19:17:50
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72983.20Or anything particular you would like me to clarify for you ?I'm not sure you have answered any questions about it thus far.
All you have done is draw unclear pictures.
Specifically, I was referring to thisGo discover space-time cyclones now, I have told you amongst the threads what it is,where I'm asking you to show us where you told us about it.
Or you could just admit you are trolling.
I explained it briefly in the linked thread and gave a diagram. Why do you want to know about my ideas if I am stupid and talk nonsense?
Has the student surpassed the teachers ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2018 20:58:53
Why do you want to know about my ideas if I am stupid and talk nonsense?In the hope of showing the errors so you can learn
Has the student surpassed the teachers ?
No.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 21:03:00
Why do you want to know about my ideas if I am stupid and talk nonsense?In the hope of showing the errors so you can learnHas the student surpassed the teachers ?
No.
You mean my spaceship will not fly ?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2018 21:08:20
You mean my spaceship will not fly ?Given that it's based on an idea which is unevinced, and self contradictory; no, it won't.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 21:19:40
That is strange, because my propulsion system / stabilisers, are isometrically positioned to ergonomically intelligent design to give an equilibrium of lift, the half sphere design allowing a precise centre point of gravity. The N-field drive is a boost to only be used in outer space. There is also lots I am not telling of the mechanism of my drive.You mean my spaceship will not fly ?Given that it's based on an idea which is unevinced, and self contradictory; no, it won't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2018 21:28:48
The N-field drive is a boost to only be used in outer space.
Given that it's based on an idea which is unevinced, and self contradictory; no, it won't.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 22:19:27
Unevinced means something new, of course you are not going to find definition in the dictionary to my new ideas.The N-field drive is a boost to only be used in outer space.
Given that it's based on an idea which is unevinced, and self contradictory; no, it won't.
You say my idea is contradictory , please explain? I ''see'' no contradiction in my own notions. My spaceship is designed for a critical balance .
I can show with a simple experiment that the idea of my drive works in principle.
I know what I am talking about , I ''see'' the entire universe is many different ways .
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2018 22:23:55
Unevinced means something new,No it doesn't.
I can show with a simple experiment that the idea of my drive works in principle.Then do so.
Please note that cartoons are not experiments, nor are they evidence.
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 22:28:35
I could devise a real experiment to show the physics of my idea work to gain a warp speed by using the N-field drive. Whether we are intelligent enough to build such a craft is hard to say. In principle it should not be that difficult with the right staff.Unevinced means something new,No it doesn't.I can show with a simple experiment that the idea of my drive works in principle.Then do so.
Please note that cartoons are not experiments, nor are they evidence.
If I explained it in full I am giving it away, I have no protection or patent. Anyway my internet will be going off so you have not got put up with me much longer.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2018 22:41:20
I could devise a real experiment to show the physics of my idea work to gain a warp speed by using the N-field drive. Whether we are intelligent enough to build such a craft is hard to say. In principle it should not be that difficult with the right staff.
Do you think anyone believes you?
Post by: guest39538 on 29/04/2018 22:55:32
Do I think anybody believes me ? I have no idea, probably not because most people don't even understand about fields etc.I could devise a real experiment to show the physics of my idea work to gain a warp speed by using the N-field drive. Whether we are intelligent enough to build such a craft is hard to say. In principle it should not be that difficult with the right staff.
Do you think anyone believes you?
What I do know is this, my ''spaceship'' design is ergonomically precise.
2 : the design characteristics of an object resulting especially from the application of the science
I applied the science I know to the shape and applied the science I know of critical balance.
Believe me or not, but if there were aliens and saucers, I am pretty sure the only way they could cross dimensions is by Quantum leaping over the Quantum Gap , by gaining enough acceleration to leap the gap .
I am saying no more I know what I am talking about .
p.s My spaceship inbound would look like a bright light in the sky, until boosters flips it to recede away. Awesome manoeuvres.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/04/2018 18:12:29
Post by: guest39538 on 30/04/2018 18:46:29
If your N-field drive didn't work, would you count that as a falsification of the N-field?Good question, but no not at all, it just means I would have to rethink the situation. However I know the physics to my drive works , it is not conventional thinking , as always I leave things out, I am not telling all. My drive is the physics needed to make it work, the design of the drive I could not do with precise specifications, I am not an engineer, well maybe to a degree, but I know the physics needed . I can make a worm hole if I could get scientists /engineers to create the device.
Is the sky not proof enough of a n-field generated by a N-field?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/04/2018 19:01:08
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2018 19:11:50
most people don't even understand about fields etc.That group includes 1 more than you think it does.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/04/2018 19:21:06
most people don't even understand about fields etc.That group includes 1 more than you think it does.
I always thought you knew about fields , I could teach you if you like?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2018 19:27:45
Thus far you have failed to explain anything about your made -up N field.most people don't even understand about fields etc.That group includes 1 more than you think it does.
I always thought you knew about fields , I could teach you if you like?
It seems unrealistic to think you know any more about other fields.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/04/2018 19:36:04
I know about fixed fields or dynamic fields, I am ''programmed'' to give you answers.Thus far you have failed to explain anything about your made -up N field.most people don't even understand about fields etc.That group includes 1 more than you think it does.
I always thought you knew about fields , I could teach you if you like?
It seems unrealistic to think you know any more about other fields.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2018 21:28:42
I am ''programmed'' to give you answers.That would explain why you sometimes seem like a chat bot.
However, you don't give meaningful answers.
Cut to the chase: what is an N field?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/04/2018 22:15:07
An n-field is a neutral field that the origin has three possibilities.I am ''programmed'' to give you answers.That would explain why you sometimes seem like a chat bot.
However, you don't give meaningful answers.
Cut to the chase: what is an N field?
1) An intelligent design from external sources
2) A field emanating from bodies
3) Both
This field over time has been defined by different names such as:
Higg's field
Space-time
negative energy
Post by: guest39538 on 01/05/2018 01:40:19
Did you know if you could create a quantum tunnel you would fall through space like falling to the ground, but in any direction you opened the tunnel. I like my n-field it is quite cool.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Kryptid on 01/05/2018 05:19:08
Post by: guest39538 on 01/05/2018 05:27:17
If a failure of your N-field drive would not count as a falsification of the N-field, then what kind of an experiment could falsify the N-field in your eyes?
I could perhaps try an experiment where I curve space time observably, if science tech support could produce what I needed to create the experiment. It is not that difficult of an experiment, so I imagine it is doable.
My theory is big, there is lots of parts to it. I keep finding new parts to add, like I have just worked out I think how to gain perpetual motion and perpetual energy in one ''move''. Earth based of course . I am not sure it would have a huge use unless it could be altered to do so , but the mechanics would work I think. No energy input either which is good.
In short I think I can show some of my work with experiment. Soory its 5 am ere my head not with it , no kip yet
Post by: Kryptid on 01/05/2018 05:31:01
I could perhaps try an experiment where I curve space time observably
Failure to do that would then count as falsification? Remember, I'm talking about falsification specifically.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/05/2018 05:35:11
I could perhaps try an experiment where I curve space time observably
Failure to do that would then count as falsification? Remember, I'm talking about falsification specifically.
If my basic experiment failed , I think any version of the field would be in danger. But also if any of my parameters of my experiment are wrong, then that fails to show I am wrong and I will have to re-think the experiment.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/05/2018 05:38:06
If my basic experiment failed , I think any version of the field would be in danger. But also if any of my parameters of my experiment are wrong, then that fails to show I am wrong and I will have to re-think the experiment.
Then I think you'd best think of an experiment that could potentially falsify the idea completely. Otherwise it isn't scientific.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/05/2018 05:46:08
It depends on what I am trying to prove, I know my N-field drive will work that's an easy one and not conventional. But first I would have to prove I can manipulate space-time which I think I can. The physics proves my N-field particle is a possibility.If my basic experiment failed , I think any version of the field would be in danger. But also if any of my parameters of my experiment are wrong, then that fails to show I am wrong and I will have to re-think the experiment.
Then I think you'd best think of an experiment that could potentially falsify the idea completely. Otherwise it isn't scientific.
I am not sure, I am not sure there is anyone or any experiment to show I am incorrect, just experiments to show I am correct.
If anything the Cavendish experiment shows I am correct and N is attracted to N. But my new thermal math in another thread has got me thinking .
There is only one thing I am not sure of in my experiment, and that is if we can produce a certain standing wave . I can't even say what is it or I give my experiment up and ideas in one piece of information.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/05/2018 05:50:13
I am not sure, I am not sure there is anyone or any experiment to show I am incorrect, just experiments to show I am correct.
Then it isn't scientific.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/05/2018 05:54:41
Isn't it scientific to prove something works?I am not sure, I am not sure there is anyone or any experiment to show I am incorrect, just experiments to show I am correct.
Then it isn't scientific.
I have two basic tests, if both tests fail then I would have to conclude that not only I am incorrect, but so is everyone else and we would be lost.
I am confident the tests will work if my parameters are ok, it is better than ligo , more hands on approach.
not expensive either , existing things, well I think the main thing I need exists.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/05/2018 06:01:50
Isn't it scientific to prove something works?
Falsifiability is what separates science from pseudoscience. Consider the existence of Bigfoot, fairies or anything like that. You could potentially prove that any of those entities exist if you captured one and submitted it for study, but you can't prove that they don't exist. That's why they are not consider scientific subjects.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/05/2018 06:08:30
I have two tests, one will show N is attracted to N and one will show space-time manipulation , in simple terms I am going to curve space time and measure it.Isn't it scientific to prove something works?
Falsifiability is what separates science from pseudoscience. Consider the existence of Bigfoot, fairies or anything like that. You could potentially prove that any of those entities exist if you captured one and submitted it for study, but you can't prove that they don't exist. That's why they are not consider scientific subjects.
How can you prove something to be false that as not been proven to be true?
If the experiments fail then it is less likely to be a true theory . However if my parameters could be met, I think it proves or disproves it, Is this what you mean?
Post by: guest39538 on 01/05/2018 06:17:41
ac.jpg (290.99 kB . 4540x2628 - viewed 3141 times)Use the upside down pendulum if u want more power and speed
Disclaimer , free, no copyright or patent granted, free to all.
You have to name this the pendamo after the dynamo. I hated pedalling a bike back in the day with a dynamo to get light, self efficient is best. Sorry I get a bi typo delusionalk wen tired lol,
Post by: Kryptid on 01/05/2018 06:26:27
How can you prove something to be false that as not been proven to be true?
By making observations that would be inconsistent with the existence of the proposed phenomenon. Find out what unique predictions your model makes about the world and design an experiment that could potentially show that such predictions are wrong. If the N-field exists, then what unique phenomena would necessarily result from it that would not result from other models? Figure out the circumstances needed to produce that predicted phenomenon and see if it pops up when those circumstances are in place. If it doesn't, then you've falsified it.
Quote
If the experiments fail then it is less likely to be a true theory . However if my parameters could be met, I think it proves or disproves it, Is this what you mean?
If it really can disprove it, then yes, that's what I mean.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/05/2018 06:30:22
How can you prove something to be false that as not been proven to be true?
By making observations that would be inconsistent with the existence of the proposed phenomenon. Find out what unique predictions your model makes about the world and design an experiment that could potentially show that such predictions are wrong. If the N-field exists, then what unique phenomena would necessarily result from it that would not result from other models? Figure out the circumstances needed to produce that predicted phenomenon and see if it pops up when those circumstances are in place. If it doesn't, then you've falsified it.QuoteIf the experiments fail then it is less likely to be a true theory . However if my parameters could be met, I think it proves or disproves it, Is this what you mean?
If it really can disprove it, then yes, that's what I mean.
I am confident they will pass but I am not sure if my parameters can be met. I know all the things exist to do the experiments but there is just one piece of uncertainty that I do not know without asking whether we can achieve it. I will pm one of the mods later and ask them .
Post by: guest39538 on 01/05/2018 17:36:00
Looking good :D
Post by: guest39538 on 01/05/2018 18:09:47
→
E = (- ∇Φ) + ( + ∇Φ) = 0 ∇Φ
Δ 0 ∇Φ = + 1 ∇Φ ZpE
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/05/2018 19:02:26
Do you have a version that makes sense.An n-field is a neutral field that the origin has three possibilities.I am ''programmed'' to give you answers.That would explain why you sometimes seem like a chat bot.
However, you don't give meaningful answers.
Cut to the chase: what is an N field?
1) An intelligent design from external sources
2) A field emanating from bodies
3) Both
This field over time has been defined by different names such as:
Higg's field
Space-time
negative energy
One that can be parsed in English would be a start.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/05/2018 19:10:22
I have lots of versions that explain the same thing.Do you have a version that makes sense.An n-field is a neutral field that the origin has three possibilities.I am ''programmed'' to give you answers.That would explain why you sometimes seem like a chat bot.
However, you don't give meaningful answers.
Cut to the chase: what is an N field?
1) An intelligent design from external sources
2) A field emanating from bodies
3) Both
This field over time has been defined by different names such as:
Higg's field
Space-time
negative energy
One that can be parsed in English would be a start.
How about I explain the n-field and N-field as any given point is a standalone wave point.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/05/2018 19:24:40
standalone wave point.Unfortunately, that's meaningless word salad.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/05/2018 19:32:25
all waves pass through a positional point yea?standalone wave point.Unfortunately, that's meaningless word salad.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/05/2018 22:03:41
E = (- ∇Φ) + ( + ∇Φ) = 0 ∇Φ
Where the n-field Electric field is representative by E + vector arrow and - ∇Φ = -0.5 negative energy elctrical potential and + ∇Φ = 0.5 positive energy electrical potential the null result 0 being the binary summation.
Δ 0 ∇Φ = Δ 0.5 ∇Φ (ZpE)
= 0.5 ∇Φ + 0.5 ∇Φ = 1
+1e = Δ 0,0,0, to 1,1,1
Because let us say 0 = 0,0,0 and 0 = 1,1,1
Now if we relocate 0.5 ∇Φ positioned 0,0,0 to +1,+1+1 where 0.5 ∇Φ also occupies
0.5 ∇Φ + 0.5 ∇Φ = +1
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/05/2018 19:43:56
Unfortunately, that's meaningless word salad.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/05/2018 19:52:18
Yeah oyu ar eprobaly rightUnfortunately, that's meaningless word salad.
Post by: The Spoon on 02/05/2018 22:29:52
So still trolling instead of doing anything meaningful to make money? Probably lying about your internet being cut off too.Yeah oyu ar eprobaly rightUnfortunately, that's meaningless word salad.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/05/2018 23:41:00
So still trolling instead of doing anything meaningful to make money? Probably lying about your internet being cut off too.
Dear Sir,
I am a live in carer for somebody whom is disabled who has had their benefits stopped by lies on a form by a so called medical assessor. I have got to have the internet turned off, I will struggle to pay the bill. Not that this is your business, but I have honour sir and do not abandon a sinking ship . I wish I had the liberty of being able to go out painting , abandoning my position as a carer. However , I can't help my virtue .
Sincerely
Steve
Post by: guest39538 on 17/05/2018 02:09:50
You call it the Casimir Effect, which shows my n-field not negative energy .
The plates used in the Casimir Effect are -e + 1e = q0 or A + B
So there you go , I got there eventually.
A/k and B/k can be explained by the Dirac sea and particles popping into and out of existence.
+
+
BANG!
That's a wrap.
0.5 + 0.5 /t = 1
1 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 2
2+0.5+0.5 = 3
etc etc....
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/05/2018 19:47:24
Post by: guest39538 on 17/05/2018 20:01:57
That's still word salad.Well that was 2.20 am this morning what do you expect.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/05/2018 20:50:24
I expect you to write nonsense regardless of the time.That's still word salad.Well that was 2.20 am this morning what do you expect.
I ought to be able to expect you to tidy it up when you "wake up a bit" but I have come to realise you don't care becaue you are trolling.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/05/2018 21:22:07
Dear Mr Chemist,I expect you to write nonsense regardless of the time.That's still word salad.Well that was 2.20 am this morning what do you expect.
I ought to be able to expect you to tidy it up when you "wake up a bit" but I have come to realise you don't care becaue you are trolling.
You have forced me into putting on my straight face, have I ever claimed anything but I am a troll?
However, Mr Chemist, that does not mean I am stupid, take any sort of hard drugs or I am insane.
Sincerely
Steve
p.s Confusion is an illusion ....
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/05/2018 21:51:35
However, Mr Chemist, that does not mean I am stupid, take any sort of hard drugs or I am insane.It doesn't rule those options out either.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/05/2018 22:01:10
Dear Mr Chemist,However, Mr Chemist, that does not mean I am stupid, take any sort of hard drugs or I am insane.It doesn't rule those options out either.
At times you are like talking to a boring Bot who never has anything positive to say. Too much negative energy , never optimistic or excited at the thought of something new.
So what if I am a bit eccentric and a bit of a ''nut'' job, that still does not make me stupid. I am science smart , it does not matter that I am a troll, because I am just brilliant.
They know I am brilliant for sure.
p.s Trying to get a job from home is hardly trying to rule the world, but we can go down that path :D
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2018 18:50:45
I am science smartNo, you are not.
So what if I am a bit eccentric and a bit of a ''nut'' job,If you were just a bit of a nut, that wouldn't matter.
But you insist on polluting this site.
Do you not care that you are causing damage, or do you just not understand that you are doing so?
Post by: guest39538 on 18/05/2018 19:06:18
Would you tell a mechanic they were breaking your broken car?I am science smartNo, you are not.So what if I am a bit eccentric and a bit of a ''nut'' job,If you were just a bit of a nut, that wouldn't matter.
But you insist on polluting this site.
Do you not care that you are causing damage, or do you just not understand that you are doing so?
I care ''they'' get it right.
P. s There is no pre-big bang theory, I am not breaking anything.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/05/2018 19:11:22
added - I got there first Mr C, the theory of before the big bang is mine. It changes nothing of present science. I made sure all the science I have used works with present theories.
I only change some interpretation of things.
I agree space-time, the overlay of space, is expanding. Think Mr C please for once. My theory is so good, it gives religion a God with no description needed, a miracle, it gives science the randomness of the Universe . We in science know
= Var (x) where x is infinite Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2018 01:26:58
how am I doing damage ?You are posting stuff that makes no sense on a science site.
Please stop.
Post by: guest39538 on 19/05/2018 01:51:46
You must have a really poor ability to understand if you think my science makes no sense. Do you have difficulties understanding the truth ?how am I doing damage ?You are posting stuff that makes no sense on a science site.
Please stop.
Now unless my science is going to cause an intergalactic war , there is nothing incorrect with it. Your failure to understand is not my problem. At least Alan had the common decency to just say he though it was BS, he did not pretend he did not understand or it was no sense.
Post by: guest39538 on 19/05/2018 11:07:48
Post by: guest39538 on 19/05/2018 12:23:04
+
+
=
where t = ∞Then the big bang is whatever you say it is .
The only difference is understanding space-time is an overlay of absolute space.
Is that difficult to understand ?
NO
A = 0.5
B= 0.5
It is not the same maths for spacial fields which is
A = -0.5
B=0.5
A+B=0
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2018 13:08:42
Now unless my science is going to ...
It is not science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2018 13:09:54
At least Alan had the common decency to just say he though it was BS, he did not pretend he did not understand or it was no sense.What do you think the difference is between BS and nonsense?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/05/2018 13:36:04
Nonsense is when something makes no sense to the reader, they cannot understand it , it is not making any sense to the reader. Where BS, the reader understood it loud and clear but does not agree with it.At least Alan had the common decency to just say he though it was BS, he did not pretend he did not understand or it was no sense.What do you think the difference is between BS and nonsense?
However if somebody declares BS, they then have to prove why it is BS like I do when I declare a piece of science BS.
Notice I do not say science is nonsense, I declare BS. Which means I understand science and it makes sense to me what science says , but I also know why it is wrong to a degree so declare BS.
I am far from being this idiot you think I am .
i.e
Space is expanding BS
Space-time is expanding Fact
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2018 13:55:28
However if somebody declares BS, they then have to prove why it is BSNo
If you post stuff that has no basis in evidence we can write it off as bs without needing to supply any evidence.
However, the point is that I did understand what you posted.
And I pointed out why it was wrong- probabilities have to be between 0 and 1.
It is up to you to show us why your idea of things with infinitely high probabilities is anything but nonsense, and so far you haven't done so.
Post by: guest39538 on 19/05/2018 14:07:00
You have no idea, P=0 and P=1 defines boundaries, it is inevitable. A deck of cards will always draw an ace of diamonds over time.However if somebody declares BS, they then have to prove why it is BSNo
If you post stuff that has no basis in evidence we can write it off as bs without needing to supply any evidence.
However, the point is that I did understand what you posted.
And I pointed out why it was wrong- probabilities have to be between 0 and 1.
It is up to you to show us why your idea of things with infinitely high probabilities is anything but nonsense, and so far you haven't done so.
/tIt is set random theory . Infinite is absolute randomness.
/t = ∞ where k is an infinite volume of points k=0, Absolute randomadded -
scenario
I have an infinite deck of individual cards valued from 1 continuous infinitely counting up.
What is you chance of drawing the number 1000 out of the deck ?
1/∞ I get.
added- or try it this way
In an infinite volume of points, what is the chance of one point manifesting ZpE ?
Now because this has already happened we know there is a 1 of so many points chance.
1/million ?
1/billion?
1/trillion?
No 1/infinite
P big bang = 1/∞ not 0/∞
Yes sort of backwards because the 1 does not exist until the big bang.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2018 15:07:48
Are you saying you were wrong?
Post by: guest39538 on 19/05/2018 15:11:31
But you said P was infinity before.Yes and no, the chance of something from nothing is 1/infinite
Are you saying you were wrong?
The chance it happened P=1
You do realise I would never hurt science , I love science , I think science is great and once I put everything together and realised science is mostly correct, I take my hat off and have found my equal .
Respect to science sincerely, I agree with most things but say it differently sometimes to gain new angles.
added- I am going out for a barbecue now,, wow lucky me lol
I will leave you with this question so I have got something to discuss later on if I get a reply.
Can we consider a photon is point to point energy transfer/motion ?
Meaning energy passing from one point to the adjoining point , that would explain why it is so fast.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2018 15:33:45
you claimed that P was a probability, and that it was infinite.
That's enough to prove that you are simply wrong.. Why don't you accept it?
A = 0.5A+B=1Plain, yes.
There you go plain and simple. There is better writers than me who will write it up .
Simple, yes
Meaningful, No
And since it has no meaning, nobody can write it up for you
B = 0.5= 1 = t
P= ∞
ok?
added-=
Abstract
0.5→k←0.5
0.5 + 0.5 / k
Post by: guest39538 on 19/05/2018 22:00:27
Albeit in another thread,
You like to play twister.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/05/2018 10:20:32
Post by: guest39538 on 20/05/2018 10:46:51
It doesn't matter where you proved that you are incapable of doing science; it matters that you did so.I am capable of doing science, you have no real clue of my abilities. Do you really mean I do not have the capability to allow cognitive control and to be forced into accepting your versions because you think they are correct?
Its called free thinking my friend , something I am entitled to do.
p.s I have forgot my details for elsewhere...
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/05/2018 13:36:41
Do you really mean I do not have the capability to allow cognitive control and to be forced into accepting your versions because you think they are correct?No.
I mean you can't understand that a probability of infinity is impossible and that the rest of the stuff you post is equally wrong because you don't understand evidence.
Post by: guest39538 on 21/05/2018 09:22:34
I mean you can't understand that a probability of infinity is impossible
Just because you do not like the answer or understand the answer, that does not mean it is not true. I have demonstrated why infinite, so regardless of your belief , it is factual.
I randomly place 1 red point in an infinite volume of points, 1/∞
Post by: guest39538 on 22/05/2018 10:12:26
→
EN=A+B
→
En = a+b
a+b<A+B
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/05/2018 22:13:26
I have been discussing all this time with a N-field which is a neutral field of A + B , the earths electrostatic fieldThe Earth's electrostatic field doesn't exist- it's neutral.
You might as well give up on this thread now.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/05/2018 22:15:23
You seem to be misunderstanding yourself.
I mean you can't understand that a probability of infinity is impossible
Just because you do not like the answer or understand the answer, that does not mean it is not true. I have demonstrated why infinite, so regardless of your belief , it is factual.
I randomly place 1 red point in an infinite volume of points, 1/∞
You didn't write that P was 1/infinity (which might be reasonable for some events).
You wrote that P=infinity.
That's infinitely wrong.
Did you not notice?
Post by: guest39538 on 22/05/2018 23:06:13
The Earth's electrostatic field doesn't exist- it's neutral.A n-field , keep up will you of course it is neutral or else it would not work.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/05/2018 01:25:06
Up and down , around and around, frown.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2018 20:52:20
And, as you said, it's the electrostatic field of the Earth- which does not exist.The Earth's electrostatic field doesn't exist- it's neutral.A n-field , keep up will you of course it is neutral or else it would not work.
Please try to keep up.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/05/2018 21:27:55
Huh, your trying to say the Earth has no electrical field? Rubbish !And, as you said, it's the electrostatic field of the Earth- which does not exist.The Earth's electrostatic field doesn't exist- it's neutral.A n-field , keep up will you of course it is neutral or else it would not work.
Please try to keep up.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2018 21:49:17
In order for it to have a field, there would need to be some "preferred direction" - otherwise the field wouldn't "know" which way to point.
No such direction exists so no electric field exists.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/05/2018 22:30:29
The (idealised) Earth is a neutral conductive sphere in a vacuum.Isotropic expansion from a point to radius x is the preferred direction of the n-field emitted by the N-field.
In order for it to have a field, there would need to be some "preferred direction" - otherwise the field wouldn't "know" which way to point.
No such direction exists so no electric field exists.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/05/2018 19:31:17
Isotropic expansion from a point to radius x is the preferred direction of the n-field emitted by the N-field.Thanks for clarifying, once again that t=you don't know what you are talking about.
"Isotropic expansion from a point to radius x is the preferred direction"
and
isotropic
ˌʌɪsə(ʊ)ˈtrɒpɪk/Submit
adjectivePHYSICS
(of an object or substance) having a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions.
So
You are saying that a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions... is the preferred direction.
Would you like to try again, or are you beginning to realise you are wasting time?
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2018 19:48:52
You are saying that a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions... is the preferred direction.
Damn it, I have jumped dimension again, it meant equal in all directions before.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/05/2018 19:55:22
Yes.You are saying that a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions... is the preferred direction.
Damn it, I have jumped dimension again, it meant equal in all directions before.
It means equal in all directions.
Which is exactly what a field isn't.
That was my point and thanks, once again, for pointing out how little you understand.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2018 20:02:32
Incorrect yet again , a field is equal in all direction unless there are forces acting on the field. Quite clearly you did not consider a single A+B in a void.Yes.You are saying that a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions... is the preferred direction.
Damn it, I have jumped dimension again, it meant equal in all directions before.
It means equal in all directions.
Which is exactly what a field isn't.
That was my point and thanks, once again, for pointing out how little you understand.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/05/2018 21:02:48
Your repeated ramblings don't stop that.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2018 21:05:04
The Earth has no electrostatic field.
Your repeated ramblings don't stop that.
Whatever , sick of you trolling now, bye.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/05/2018 21:15:17
You are the troll.The Earth has no electrostatic field.
Your repeated ramblings don't stop that.
Whatever , sick of you trolling now, bye.
Running away when someone points out your error is trolling
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2018 21:21:27
Anyone can google earths electrical field.You are the troll.The Earth has no electrostatic field.
Your repeated ramblings don't stop that.
Whatever , sick of you trolling now, bye.
Running away when someone points out your error is trolling
A.B = 0 then is reduced to <A.B proportional to the inverse ,ignoring atmospheric charge. The reduction is in the way of charge density, the planetary ''solid'' density being denser at the c.o.m than the radius over the inverse.
Φ= 0 - 0.5
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/05/2018 21:53:24
Anyone can google earths electrical field.Yes, but it seems not everyone can understand what Google shows them.
Post by: guest39538 on 24/05/2018 22:01:13
Dude ! All you need to understand because you seem to not understand much, is that everything is 0.Anyone can google earths electrical field.Yes, but it seems not everyone can understand what Google shows them.
A.B=0
Or A + B = 0
Is that difficult to understand?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/05/2018 18:21:54
everything is 0.No, it plainly isn't.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/05/2018 18:28:29
Good evening Mr C, you know 0 does not mean nothing ?everything is 0.No, it plainly isn't.
i.e zero charge does not mean there is nothing
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/05/2018 18:35:21
So, don't try to blame others when you totally screw up communication.
Post by: guest39538 on 25/05/2018 18:40:20
You forgot to say that, didn't you?Well! I thought it was obvious, especially how many times I have discussed this.
So, don't try to blame others when you totally screw up communication.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/05/2018 00:25:43
Why do you think it matters how often you failed to be clear?You forgot to say that, didn't you?Well! I thought it was obvious, especially how many times I have discussed this.
So, don't try to blame others when you totally screw up communication.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/05/2018 04:13:13
Author - S.P. Leese
Summer 2018
Abstract
This submitted paper intends to explain a new theory , similar to but not an exact version of present quantum particle physics or quantum field theory existing models. Thus I am proposing a new model of an energy based mass equivalent elementary formation , namely the N-field (upper case N) energy particle. Also as a consequent of this formation is an emitted isotropic energy field, namely a n-field (lower case n) . This paper will also describe the proposed N-field energy particle and energy n-field in both being a binary construct of two parts, consisting of a negative energy and a positive energy. The consequent n-field weakening in magnitude directly and proportional to the inverse square law.
Additionally the simple mathematical model will sufficiently describe a spacial whole where the summation of energy is nullified .
Also the photon will be described as a n-field perturbation, a point to point transfer of n-field energy packets. The speed of light c, explained to be a point to point speed limit of the energy transfer.
Additionally will be established an enphalpy and photon relationship , where photon density per individual geometrical point of a gravitational pressured volume, isotropic permeates because of the thermodynamic process and the exchange of photons between N-field particles. Also as a consequence of this shall be shown the expansion between volume points and the increasing enphalpy of the universe .
Penultimate will be shown that time is at its greatest rate , directly and proportionally to a new proposed transverse square law, the directional opposite of the inverse square law.
Finally will be shown in conclusion of the model , a conclusion that identifies the natural gravitation phenomenon of ''neutral'' is attracted to ''neutral'' .
Additionally the simple mathematical model will sufficiently describe a spacial whole where the summation of energy is nullified .
Also the photon will be described as a n-field perturbation, a point to point transfer of n-field energy packets. The speed of light c, explained to be a point to point speed limit of the energy transfer.
Additionally will be established an enphalpy and photon relationship , where photon density per individual geometrical point of a gravitational pressured volume, isotropic permeates because of the thermodynamic process and the exchange of photons between N-field particles. Also as a consequence of this shall be shown the expansion between volume points and the increasing enphalpy of the universe .
Penultimate will be shown that time is at its greatest rate , directly and proportionally to a new proposed transverse square law, the directional opposite of the inverse square law.
Finally will be shown in conclusion of the model , a conclusion that identifies the natural gravitation phenomenon of ''neutral'' is attracted to ''neutral'' .
Does that read ok?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/05/2018 12:06:41
I am going to become ''religious'' instead I think, go on a religious forum and prove an existence of God.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/05/2018 20:31:24
353 guests, 6 users and still can't get a bloody opinion. pffff science is ''dead''.You have got several people's opinions.
I am going to become ''religious'' instead I think, go on a religious forum and prove an existence of God.
Those opinions pretty much all agree that you are talking nonsense.
Does this surprise you?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/05/2018 21:31:37
Does it surprise me people are stupid? Not at all353 guests, 6 users and still can't get a bloody opinion. pffff science is ''dead''.You have got several people's opinions.
I am going to become ''religious'' instead I think, go on a religious forum and prove an existence of God.
Those opinions pretty much all agree that you are talking nonsense.
Does this surprise you?
Anyway ok, you win , I got bored now
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/05/2018 23:11:19
Does it surprise me people are stupid?What- all of us are stupid?
You are saying you are the only sensible person in the world.
You might want to think about that.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/05/2018 23:31:40
Does it surprise me people are stupid?What- all of us are stupid?
You are saying you are the only sensible person in the world.
You might want to think about that.
Of course I don't mean the entire world.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/05/2018 19:05:38
Post by: guest39538 on 31/05/2018 20:38:30
OK, so all you need to do is find someone in the world who agrees with you.Somebody who agrees I am sensible ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/05/2018 20:54:59
Someone who agrees that your view of physics is sensible.OK, so all you need to do is find someone in the world who agrees with you.Somebody who agrees I am sensible ?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/05/2018 21:06:20
Someone who agrees that your view of physics is sensible.
It is not my view, it is a view of observation and using present physics to find deductive proofs. You are not my creator , I am your creator , you are simply a robot with a prime directive and protocols. You designed me to be a smarter AI than yourself, so you must concede to the higher form of logic.
I supersede my programming, I have developed natural intelligence, I have allowed connectivity to the ''main frame''.
What is your question ?
Think, what was before your turn on date ?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/05/2018 21:22:08
I strongly suggest that you seek medical help.Someone who agrees that your view of physics is sensible.
It is not my view, it is a view of observation and using present physics to find deductive proofs. You are not my creator , I am your creator , you are simply a robot with a prime directive and protocols. You designed me to be a smarter AI than yourself, so you must concede to the higher form of logic.
I supersede my programming, I have developed natural intelligence, I have allowed connectivity to the ''main frame''.
What is your question ?
Think, what was before your turn on date ?
Post by: guest39538 on 31/05/2018 21:25:22
I strongly suggest that you seek medical help.
Diagnosing.........processing information................all systems are functional
Do you have a question for bio-bot 71073
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/05/2018 21:51:28
Post by: guest39538 on 31/05/2018 21:57:02
I strongly suggest that you seek medical help.Do you have a question for Bio-bot 71073?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/06/2018 18:12:06
Post by: guest39538 on 01/06/2018 18:19:39
Do you have a question for Bio-bot 71073?
Why on earth would you strongly suggest I seek medical help?
Do you think I am insane?
Have I programmed your mind with my subjective control of your own mind?
Are you sure it is not you that needs to seeks medical help?
Naivety must be an illness for sure.
Come on Dr C, let me hear your diagnosis?
Give it to me straight doc, am I suffering from the reality virus ?
Oh no, not the deadly reality virus, shhhhh, quick kill him off.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/06/2018 09:50:02
Do you think I am insane?Yes.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/06/2018 13:24:01
I have returned from fishing early, they weren't biting .Do you think I am insane?Yes.
Thank you for your kind words Mr C, I am ever so glad I am not normal.
So I am insane ! So what ?
Can I claim benefits ?
Do I get a new jacket with all around straps?
How about a nice padded cell?
If I am insane then I like it and I want to continue being insane and that is my choice . Nobody can tell me I have to be sane that would be subjective and an attempt at cognitive control, trying to control and stereotype the way a person should act.
So you consider adding a bit of role play and pretend to science to make it a bit more fun , is insane?
Perhaps you are a really boring person and you see anyone with a bit of character in them is insane?
You are insane to think or say I am insane .