0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
merge3.jpg (66.67 kB . 898x572 - viewed 8446 times)Quantum field solidity and Quantum field merge.
Are you saying that μ0 is not 0?
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. //www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evgP.s all these forums that say I am full of chit for years then a video of the same chit . pfffff
Why not stop?
Quote from: Thebox on 07/10/2017 12:24:19Are 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/mNothing 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_equationYou are plainly wrong.Why do you keep banging on about it?
By that you are saying there is an ether.
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.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/10/2017 19:00:28And 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 20/10/2017 20:04:42Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/10/2017 19:00:28And 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. For a start, what you are posting isn't physics; at best it seems to be bad postmodern poetryYou will learn faster if you ask questions than if you post balderdash- so why do you insist on the slow route?
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?
Quote from: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 16:15:39If 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 03/11/2017 16:43:08Quote from: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 16:15:39If 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,
What you really mean to say is what I post is not the Physics you were taught by education that is mainstream
Quote from: Thebox on 21/10/2017 00:06:29What you really mean to say is what I post is not the Physics you were taught by education that is mainstreamNoWhat 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.
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_lawDo you accept this to be factual science and true?