0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
Quote from: Thebox on 07/11/2017 21:50:23Right ok, I think the penny dropped. You say fields don't work like that, I disagreeThen 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.
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
Quote from: Thebox on 07/11/2017 22:49:02The 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=NThat'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.
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)
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.
Because you are not measuring both polities at the same time. A+B=NA=q1B=q2q1+q2 measures N always
So now you're saying that there is no such thing as net charge?
Another huh from me, what are you reading ?
q1+q2 measures N always
The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.
Quote from: Thebox on 07/11/2017 22:49:02The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral. It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/11/2017 19:52:21Quote from: Thebox on 07/11/2017 22:49:02The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral. It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.Have you ever thought you are just not smart enough to understand it?
Quote from: Thebox on 09/11/2017 14:23:11Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/11/2017 19:52:21Quote from: Thebox on 07/11/2017 22:49:02The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral. It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.Have you ever thought you are just not smart enough to understand it? Since your ideas are contradicted by reality, my understanding doesn't enter into it.
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?
Quote from: Thebox on 09/11/2017 22:17:00The 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.
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 .
Quote from: Thebox on 09/11/2017 23:03:53That does not prove the existence of the Proton . Have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#History
He named this new fundamental building block of the nucleus the proton,
The spontaneous decay of free protons has never been observed
Which does not prove the nucleus is a particle.
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?
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.