0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I think it does demonstrate the model and disagree with your disagreement on the physical facts and interpretation of the results.
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.
Surely I deserve some credit for this one?
Define "steady state".
No, because any such attraction is cancelled out by repulsion
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, 211-223https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4789885You can download and read it from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616
Are the fundamental constituents fields or particles?
Equal loss to gain
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.
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: 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.
Quote from: PmbPhy on 19/03/2018 00:37:32Quote 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.I am wrong about what my own notion states? how strangeIt 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 19/03/2018 13:47:25Quote from: PmbPhy on 19/03/2018 00:37:32Quote 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.I am wrong about what my own notion states? how strangeIt 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.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. 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.
Quote from: The Spoon on 19/03/2018 14:48:25Quote from: Thebox on 19/03/2018 13:47:25Quote from: PmbPhy on 19/03/2018 00:37:32Quote 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.I am wrong about what my own notion states? how strangeIt 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.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. 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. 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? 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 .
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?
Quote from: Thebox on 19/03/2018 14:53:03Quote from: The Spoon on 19/03/2018 14:48:25Quote from: Thebox on 19/03/2018 13:47:25Quote from: PmbPhy on 19/03/2018 00:37:32Quote 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.I am wrong about what my own notion states? how strangeIt 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.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. 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. 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? 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 . 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.
What is so difficult to understand? An electron is attracted to a Proton making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral
Quote from: Thebox on 19/03/2018 15:32:43What is so difficult to understand? An electron is attracted to a Proton making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral The fact that "making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral " doesn't make sense.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?
But "an electron plus a proton = neutral" doesn't make sense because neutral is an adjective, not a noun.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?