Surely I deserve some credit for this one?This forum doesn't have a "performance art" section.
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.
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.
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 predictionsThen you are not interested in science.
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.
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-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
Which is completely unnecessary. A well-explained phenomenon does not need any new explanation.
LOOK what I say in the video.
I beg to differ, I explain it better
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?
The present evidence for one.
Opposite fields attract
Likewise fields repulse
Basic physics.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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 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.
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.
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.
An electron is not attracted to a proton...Yes it is.
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 5954 times)
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.
f2.jpg (35.74 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5954 times)
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.
f2.jpg (35.74 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5954 times)
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.
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.
f2.jpg (35.74 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5954 times)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The rest of what you posted is gibberish.
I should hope so
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?
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.
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.The edit was the gibberish bit.
Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.
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.
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.
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 .Nobody else does.
I understand my own notion .Nobody else does.
Whose fault is that?
I understand my own notion .Nobody else does.
Whose fault is that?
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?No, even with proper punctuation etc, it's cargo cult science at best.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. ..
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.
qfm.jpg (34.48 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5767 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.
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.
qfm.jpg (34.48 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5767 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.
The rest of your post is gibberish.
The cube will weigh less on the Moon than on Earth, but it will not have less mass.
First of all μ0 means zero permeability.Not in the real world.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think I have just worked out my own answer.
merge3.jpg (66.67 kB . 898x572 - viewed 8446 times)
Quantum field solidity and Quantum field merge.
Are you saying that μ0 is not 0?It's not that I am saying it.
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
Why not stop?
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?
By that you are saying there is an ether.No I am not.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?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.
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.
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,
What you really mean to say is what I post is not the Physics you were taught by education that is mainstreamNo
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
What's the point of this if you don't accept reality?
Can we say that the + and - polarity is directly proportional to the mass?No, we can't.
The first is that polarity isn't a "quantity"That would be untrue, there is two polarities, two is a quantity.
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.
There are an infinite number of integers.
No, we can't, because polarity doesn't have a magnitude.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
Interpretation is not pretending .
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.
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.
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?
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
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?
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.
Depends on what?
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.
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.
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.
Gravity does vary. What, do you think all of the planets have the same gravitational field strength?9.81 m/s2 pff constant
Given that your premises are flawed, your conclusion cannot be trusted.You have not read my unwritten paper on the matter.
Unsupported statement.no its not.
Gravity does vary. What, do you think all of the planets have the same gravitational field strength?9.81 m/s2 pff constant
You have not read my unwritten paper on the matter.
no its not.
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.
So please stop expecting me to have all the answers immediately as I have to sleep to ''dream'' up an answer.
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 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.
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.
Charge and mass has no attractive properties,Demonstrably false.
Polarity is a constantNo it isn't.
more than a coincidence I would say.Sensible people would't say it
I have not said it is proven to be true however the factsYou didn't cite any facts, just nonsense.
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.
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.
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.
p.s I have proven it true in my own mind because i cant find it to be untrue.
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.
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.
If something is possible then it is more than just the imagination.
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?
True but when the evidence is present information of science, the suggestive becomes more factual.
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 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.Huh? I think you are being a little slow there,
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 ?
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.
Since when is polarity the same as a volume?Fields
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.
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?
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
Well to me , the science over the years everyone has learnt me ''speaks'' to me and says it is possible
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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?
I think not, the field is likewise in polarity all over to itself.
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 one point is the same and likewise to all other points of the field yes?
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.
Why do you keep changing the question? the question is about a single polarity field not a field surrounding a negative charged particle .
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.
So you can't imagine a void and a single polarity dark energy trying to manifest?
trying to manifestYou seem to be writing bad Gothic literature, rather than science.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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=N
A=q1
B=q2
q1+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 ?
Another huh from me, what are you reading ?
q1+q2 measures N always
The 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?The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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 .
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)
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?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''.
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.
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.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.
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 .
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 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.
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.
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.
'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.
You expect a lot from an amateur scientist and a young notion ,from a person who is does not know all science.
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.
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 field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole according to the contradiction of your own
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 poleNobody said it was.
The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single poleNobody said it was.
added thought - two opposite polarity ''energies'' can occupy the same point simultaneously.What do you think that sentence means?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Guess what? I understand it and it is not the lowest measure.No you don't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Electromagnetic fields have polarity and are not made up of photons.Yes they are.
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.
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.SThere isn't any physics to attack.
Electromagnetic fields have polarity and are not made up of photons.
Are you denying that magnets have poles?
There isn't any physics to attack.bs
Your original claim is that the currently-accepted model contradicts itself.Please provide reference of where I say that.
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?
Please provide reference of where I say that.
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.
''You'' are telling me a likewise field does not expand but on the other hand saying likewise repulses.
That is a contradiction.
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.
There is plenty of bs, but no physics.There isn't any physics to attack.bs
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,
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?
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?
Would you like to try that in English?It was in English, want try to read without so much ambiguity?
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.
A positive or negative can not exist independently of each other.You just broke the irony meter.
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,
A positive or negative can not exist independently of each other.
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.Likewise polarities repulse
likewise polarities can not exist without opposite polaritesExcept, as has been pointed out, they do.
Except, as has been pointed out, they do.The repulsion would not allow the existence
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.
Likewise polarities repulse
likewise polarities can not exist without opposite polarites
Q.F.S is real and can be shown with magnets.
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?
Ions maybe, I am not really familiar with a Cathode ray nor how a CRT screen works.
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.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.
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?
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?
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:
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?
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?
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?
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.
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 .
Of course if we were discussing protons, the same applies about the repulsive force?
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?
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.
I too am interested in why you think your intellect is on par with the top 5% of scientists.Who said scientists?
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.
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%.
In time I will define gravity and other stuff.You may find that someone already did that.
Of course nitrogen gas is a solid
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.
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.
Putting simply I am a genius and most of you are not.
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
Who said scientists?
Of course nitrogen gas is a solid relative to nitrogen gas.
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.
Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out think me.
You wished, then I would not be such a ''nightmare'' to the stereotypical scientist.
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.
Completely subjective.
If there were 3 quarks they would repulse each other.
HUh? it expands into potential wave energy
how do you conclude it destroys energy? It changes form that's all.
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.
What is potential wave energy?Potential energy that has permeated that much it has no density. However transversely it be can be regathered .
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.
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.
Potential energy that has permeated that much it has no density. However transversely it be can be regathered .
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 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.
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
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?
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?
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?
No 4 mins 10 seconds onwards. It says it emits a beam and the beam splits into 3.
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?
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?
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.
Ok , what is the polarity of the magnetic field?
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?
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:
South magnetic pole at the top?
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.
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).That's a strawman. I explained what it was that you didn't understand.
In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
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.
I remind you that you said that nitrogen gas is a solid.
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
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.
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 +?
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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
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"
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
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"
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
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.
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.
Challenge this then? I know I am right and it can't be challenged.
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.
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
tp0.jpg (23.51 kB . 898x572 - viewed 4437 times)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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?
how the hell do I get people to comment? ISay something comprehensible.
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.
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?
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?
people would always talk rather than listen
Do you have a mirror handy?
Evidence - Exhibit 1-e a + b = abCare to guess again?
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?
Math is not a guess .......
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).
I am dying to know but the teachers are saying little, is my math improving?We can only be teachers if you learn...
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?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.
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.
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. "
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"
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.
a ''volume'' in a matrix, the interior
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
the interior of the defined parameters of the matrix
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
The parameters of the Matrix are the boundary and within that boundary.What boundary?
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?
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.
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.
What do you think R3 is?Real coordinate space.
Each point (or set of points in) it in it can be labelled with a matrix. That matrix has 2 dimensions- columns and rows.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
read my edit bruva....Practically none of it makes sense
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
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.
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.
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.
And comments on the latest edited post?None of what you have posted since I first wrote that makes much sense.
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.
nomenclatureI tell you what, forget everything I wrote and concentrate on this one sentence.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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,
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...
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.
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.
If we give the individual mono-poles elements a value ofAre you taking the piss?
e- = i
+1e = j
i + j = Nand
e- = i
+1e = j
This "value": is it age, cost, charge, mass, shoe size?The value is a dimension and existence Mr C.
As defined, is the following possible?This is possible if your definition of a includes some points being electrons
i ∈ (a)
Could i have an independent and distinct existence?That depends on the properties of i.
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?An individual i has dimensions, therefore has more than one point.
If all the points were electrons then yes
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.
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.Ok, hmmmm, a momentary pause in theory and questions arise.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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]
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.
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 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.
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
Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.
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,
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.
When a Cation collides with an anion, E=mc² and both particles can be totally annihilated, producing n-wave photons
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.
I do not think we could collide table salt at c.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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?
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:
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
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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 .
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.
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.
I didn’t say it was a scientific theoryShucks......
How do I know I am not looking at anions?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed
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
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
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.
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?
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?
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?
What do you think that means?
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
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.Explain charge conservation? I will also look it up
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.
Explain how a ''free'' electron can retain form ?I don't need to explain why your made up nonsense is wrong.
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.
I do not need you to re-enforce my notion, I already understand it is credible.
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.
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.
Well, time dilation does not happen quite the way science think it happens, so technically I was correct.
I have cited things that show that isolated electrons exist.
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...
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?
I am saying science is more than right, I am just finishing the details.
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".
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
singleton setUntil you define that you are just proving me right about you posting nonsense.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
the common factor being polarity,Polarity of what?
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.
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?
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.
Likewise polarities repulse , opposite polarities attract, they do not work differently although they may have different characteristics.
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.
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.
it is obvious what I am sayingNo.
The polarity of whatever, magnetic polarity, charge polarity, field polarity, polarity means the same thing in any instant.
I understand the strong nuclear force, it is a bit like a Chinese finger puzzle.LOL
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.
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.
So it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
F ∝ F of the lid?
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?
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?
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.
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 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?
It is hardly rocket science to put F1 and F2It's simple and obvious.
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?
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.
now you can add the imaginary proton wallWhat's holding that together?
The electron wallnow you can add the imaginary proton wallWhat's holding that together?
I know coulomb's law is for electromagnetic force , but it is the best one for describing polarity interaction.
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.
The electron wall
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.
My argument explains those two forces. So it definitely does not violate it.
I am talking about polarity is the force.
Polarity in general .
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.
Consider polarity as a point of attraction or repulsion.
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.
Are they really not attracting 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.
What experiment has demonstrated that electric fields are made up two elements?When you measure it to be neutral , 0 charge.
I have no need to because solidity is sufficiently-well explained by existing physics models.
When you measure it to be neutral , 0 charge.
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.
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 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?
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?
It is an atomic field of two opposite polarities a and b, the nucleus in the diagram is a planet or body.
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?
I suppose it may be an electrostatic field. Although I like to think all fields are a transformation of this singular field.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think it is quite clearCan you find a single person who agrees with you?
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.
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?
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.
there is no electron without a proton.In the real world we have videos of them.
Existing because they are in a n-field.there is no electron without a proton.In the real world we have videos of them.
So, the n field keeps the elephants away.Effective isn't it .
http://www.medical-jokes.com/its-to-keep-the-elephants-away/
I think it is quite clearCan you find a single person who agrees with you?
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?
You must not:
ignore inconvenient facts or relevant considerations when providing advice or making decisions
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?
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
However, I think I have just explained it very well with my short explanation?
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.
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.
It is an atomic field of two opposite polarities a and b
Existing because they are in a n-field.You have provided no evidence for the existence of this field.
the common factor being polarity, we only need to look at a and b.Again, you have not explained what you mean by "polarity".
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.
All e- ∈ {R³}Does not make sense.
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.
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
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
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.
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 occupy R³ so are an element of R³ , R³ is our volume.
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.
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.
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.
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.
likewise electrostatic pointsAgain- gibberish.
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.
Do you agree there is physical things in a R³ space?It's a matter of definition but no.
A point like particle of electrostatic energy that has a pole.likewise electrostatic pointsAgain- gibberish.
What do you actually mean by this?
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?
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.
The physics shows it
Coulombs law .The physics shows it
What physics shows it?
Coulombs law .
Newtons third law.
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?
« 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?
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.
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?
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?
If so, how would that be either tested, or expounded upon?
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?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.
The maths demonstrated that an electron has to have dimension to exist.
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
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.
Colliding two electrons will always produce two scattered electrons, and it may sometimes produce some photons from initial and final state radiation
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.
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!
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.
Is it possible for electrons to by composed of multiple points?No
I will give you an experiment, emit some electrons directed at some electrons.That experiment is done all the time.
If they had no volume there would be nothing to collide.The electrons don't collide.
After a cursory read of this thread I do see where some promising concepts can be developed.Like what?
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.
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".
On the premise that all signed electrostatic fields are attracted to neutral signed electrostatic fields,Wrong.
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.
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.
Points have no volume by definition.3. Each point within [a] has a standard dimensional size asymptotically equivalent to zero.
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".
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)?
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.
A ZPE is described in the abstractThe abstract says it's a zero point energy.
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.
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.No
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.
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.
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?
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?
An electron has a diameter
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
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?
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?
If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I did not make my statement based on nothing.
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.
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?
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?
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 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
[attachment=0,msg535140]
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.
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"?
Before the BB there was nothing
How do you know?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Spacial fields have special mass.Yes and this is a special thread.
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.
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 .
I do not think objectively that a point particle could exist, a point space provable but not a point particle.
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 .
The strong nuclear force is the entanglement of n-fields, the emitted field of the atom (N-field particle).
You can't declare that until a confirmatory experiment demonstrates it.Drop any object, confirmed,
What is an entanglement of n-fields?
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.
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.
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?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.
Define "steady state".Equal loss to gain
No, because any such attraction is cancelled out by repulsion
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
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.Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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?
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 .
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
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?
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?
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
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
(-e) + (+1e) = n
OK, that's clear- but it's wrong.
In the real world
(-e) + (+1e) = a pair of gamma rays
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?
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?
The atom is the neutron.No.
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
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 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.
The Hydrogen atom has less force acting on it than a Neutron.
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?
I am about 99.9% sure that gravity is polarity related.On what basis?
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.OK, so your basis is false.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Apart from you saying nonsense or it is wrong, you have not proved me wrong ...
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.
I have repeatedly shown that you are wrong.Really, when was this then in your imagination?
So have others
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.
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.
know Neutral things are attracted to neutral things because they are uncharged,Non sequitur.
Logical argument
If A→←B and B→←A then A→←A,B and B→←A,B then must A,B→←A,B
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.
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.
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,
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?
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, ...
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
No force no mass simple.Simple; but wrong.
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.
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.
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.
Mass is a result in kg on a set of scales,is plainly wrong in zero gravity.
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.
'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.
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.
if people were aware of me and my notions in full, science would become a laughing stock.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.”
Incorrect, you have demonstrated constantly that you can not think beyond your subjective education.Nope.
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.
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.
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
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.
scales.jpg (29.59 kB . 836x464 - viewed 6934 times)
No worries , it is complex.
scales.jpg (29.59 kB . 836x464 - viewed 6934 times)
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.
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.
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.
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 teach you how to deal with idiots if you like and the way is
ΔZPE= + = =Why do you think S is always 1?
The Box, you're either promoting something or discrediting something. Can you be clearer?
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.
God's equation?yes
The one constantly deleted?
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?
1+1= 1No it isn't.
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
NoOK, hwy are you assuming that both M and S are zero?
M + M = M and S + S = S
1 + 1 = 1
Where is the 0 ?It's the only number for which S + S =S
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
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.
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.
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 awayIt's very easty to stop me replying to all your posts and pointing out the holes in them.
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?
Congrats on getting me banned elsewhere, for about the 20th time.I doubt I have got anyone banned anywhere.
You must be infatuated with me.No.
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.
I suggest you do not know as much as you pretend to know.I suggest you get a mirror.
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.
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.
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.
Go discover space-time cyclones now, I have told you amongst the threads what it is,
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.
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
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".
It is not my fault if you can't spot the pieces I have put in threads.Yes it is.
I am feeling quite proud of myself.What for?
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.
my daughter who is only eleven, will be the new improved model of me.
It doesn't matter who googles " space-time cyclones".
So it has nothing to do with me personally.
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?
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.
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.
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,
She destroyed me in about 2 minutesIt's not that hard.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 ?
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.
Or anything particular you would like me to clarify for you ?I'm not sure you have answered any questions about it thus far.
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.
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.
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 ?
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 ?Given that it's based on an idea which is unevinced, and self contradictory; no, it won't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
most people don't even understand about fields etc.That group includes 1 more than you think it does.
most people don't even understand about fields etc.That group includes 1 more than you think it does.
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?
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.
I am ''programmed'' to give you answers.That would explain why you sometimes seem like a chat bot.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Isn't it scientific to prove something works?
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?
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.
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
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.
standalone wave point.Unfortunately, that's meaningless word salad.
all waves pass through a positional point yea?standalone wave point.Unfortunately, that's meaningless word salad.
Unfortunately, that's meaningless word salad.
Yeah oyu ar eprobaly rightUnfortunately, that's meaningless word salad.
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.
So still trolling instead of doing anything meaningful to make money? Probably lying about your internet being cut off too.
That's still word salad.Well that was 2.20 am this morning what do you expect.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
how am I doing damage ?You are posting stuff that makes no sense on a science site.
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 ...
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?
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 BSNo
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.
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?
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
Albeit in another thread,
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?
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
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 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/∞
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You are saying that a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions... is the preferred direction.
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.
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.
The Earth has no electrostatic field.
Your repeated ramblings don't stop that.
You are the troll.The Earth has no electrostatic field.
Your repeated ramblings don't stop that.
Whatever , sick of you trolling now, bye.
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
Anyone can google earths electrical field.Yes, but it seems not everyone can understand what Google shows them.
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.
everything is 0.No, it plainly isn't.
Good evening Mr C, you know 0 does not mean nothing ?everything is 0.No, it plainly isn't.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Does it surprise me people are stupid?What- all of us are stupid?
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.
OK, so all you need to do is find someone in the world who agrees with you.Somebody who agrees I am sensible ?
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 ?
Someone who agrees that your view of physics is sensible.
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 ?
I strongly suggest that you seek medical help.
I strongly suggest that you seek medical help.Do you have a question for Bio-bot 71073?
Do you have a question for Bio-bot 71073?
Do you think I am insane?Yes.
I have returned from fishing early, they weren't biting .Do you think I am insane?Yes.