0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/11/2017 21:52:44Quote 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?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. The n-field would be the unification of invisible fields that permeate into space.
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?
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: Thebox on 15/11/2017 11:02:50Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/11/2017 21:52:44Quote 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?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. The n-field would be the unification of invisible fields that permeate into space. You seem not to understand.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).
In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.
Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 20:19:01You 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 20:22:14In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 11:03:24South magnetic pole at the top? I believe so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bored Chemist.
South magnetic pole at the top?
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 +?
Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 23:56:02So 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?
Quote from: Kryptid on 15/11/2017 23:58:20Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 23:56:02So 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. 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 16/11/2017 00:10:37Quote from: Kryptid on 15/11/2017 23:58:20Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 23:56:02So 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. 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.
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 15/11/2017 19:33:53Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 11:03:24South 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 +?
Quote from: The Spoon on 15/11/2017 20:57:38Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 20:22:14In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcakeWell 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 21:05:23Quote from: The Spoon on 15/11/2017 20:57:38Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 20:22:14In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcakeWell 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. You have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums.
Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 23:56:02Quote from: Kryptid on 15/11/2017 19:33:53Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 11:03:24South 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 +?We know it isn't that, because that doesn't make any sense.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"
Quote from: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 21:00:15Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 21:05:23Quote from: The Spoon on 15/11/2017 20:57:38Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 20:22:14In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcakeWell 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. You have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums. Really now, then you can challenge me on time and time dilation can you? Please feel free to start a challenge thread
Quote from: Bored chemist on 16/11/2017 20:21:38Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 23:56:02Quote from: Kryptid on 15/11/2017 19:33:53Quote from: Thebox on 15/11/2017 11:03:24South 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 +?We know it isn't that, because that doesn't make any sense.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"You really h ave no thinking ability at all. A calm lake is a stable state until the wind is applied.