0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Putting simply I am a genius and most of you are not.
Quote from: Thebox on 13/11/2017 21:39:10Putting simply I am a genius and most of you are not.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect[/quQuote from: Bored chemist on 13/11/2017 21:58:38Quote from: Thebox on 13/11/2017 21:39:10Putting simply I am a genius and most of you are not.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effectYou wished, then I would not be such a ''nightmare'' to the stereotypical scientist. Pure logic , something in which you lack.
Quote from: Thebox on 13/11/2017 21:39:10Putting 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).
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.
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.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?
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.
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
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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtc3qbpHRPgQuote from: Thebox on 14/11/2017 06:50:30you 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=84266QuoteI think I observe an electron-proton field both polarities. A+B=nOf 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?
Quote from: Thebox on 14/11/2017 17:27:51I 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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 14/11/2017 21:43:27Alpha 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? Typically perpendicular to the paper on which the mage is drawn.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?
Quote from: Thebox on 14/11/2017 02:27:11First 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?
Quote from: Thebox on 14/11/2017 21:51:34Ok , 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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDtnSUL2Q7o
South magnetic pole at the top?