0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Because you can't observe wave energy which is permeating, it has no density. Might be able to detect it though.
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''.
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 10/11/2017 23:45:41 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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 10/11/2017 16:51:28You 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. Quote from: Kryptid on 10/11/2017 16:51:28That 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 .
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 10/11/2017 23:45:41 you're forgetting about neutrons. Again a speculation particle ...
. You didn't address how different isotopes can exist in your model without neutrons or how sustained nuclear chain reactions are possible without neutrons.
Quote from: Thebox on 11/11/2017 01:50:24Quote from: Kryptid on 10/11/2017 23:45:41 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. Absolute crap.
Quote from: Thebox on 11/11/2017 01:50:24Quote from: Kryptid on 10/11/2017 23:45:41 you're forgetting about neutrons. Again a speculation particle ... If you want to pretend that neutrons don't exist, you don't just have to explain the mass.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.
'Likewise to itself' is just mangling the English language.
You expect a lot from an amateur scientist and a young notion ,from a person who is does not know all science.
Quote from: Thebox on 11/11/2017 16:19:55You 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.
But when you own science contradicts your own model...
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.
The law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle.
The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole
Quote from: Thebox on 11/11/2017 16:42:50The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole Nobody said it was.