0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
And what have you decided is true about the fields surrounding the atoms that expand outwards?
Of course they are not merged polarities , but it certainly shows q.f.s quantum field solidity
There is also no reason that two merged opposite polarities would not retain the solidity against other fields.
If a positive magnetic or negative magnetic field independently are ''solids'' relative to likewise fields, then there is no reason to think that the two fields merging would create system failure in solidity.
There is no such thing as a "positive" or "negative" magnetic field.
Neutral things observably don't repel each other. That alone is reason enough to know better
The fields around atoms don't expand outwards, so it's irrelevant to atomic structure.
merge1.jpg (26.15 kB . 898x572 - viewed 5074 times)I see no reason why the mechanics would not work the same. r=F1+F2
You know there is opposite polarities, I think you are just being awkward with that one. Pos and neg just represent opposites.
Only because they can not overcome the reference frame inertia
Neutral things retain there independent repulsive and attractive properties
Hmmm, yes they do. You just didn't want to discuss it and ignored my question and diagram.
see this , you might have been typing when i posted it.
You don't know that magnetic poles are called north and south?
Inertia has nothing to do with it. Attraction and repulsion that are in balance cannot produce net motion. If there is net motion, then the forces cannot be in balance.
According to what experiment?
Give me a link to any respected scientific source that says that fields in atoms expand. Electromagnetic fields already have an infinite range. You can't expand beyond infinity.
You can't have 3 magnetic poles of one type and then only 2 magnetic poles of another type. Magnetic poles always come in pairs.
In what respect ? planets? Which are already at the equilibrium radius so will do no more than travel around in a circular type pattern?
No experiment, according to the laws of physics and the mechanic involved. Yes it will measure neutral but that has nothing to do with the individual atomic properties. The north and south still remain in objects although the combined measurement of the two independent reads N. The N you measure is both independent forces measured as one.
That is what I was saying, I am thinking more along the lines of big bang and the creation of atoms, from the instant of creation of a 0 point energy , it starts to expand for like you said infinitely.
Huh? The one on the left is a standard magnet. The one on the right is a standard magnet but layered in a different formation to merge the fields.
There is no "equilibrium radius": any object can form an orbit at any distance so long as its velocity is sufficient to prevent its orbit from decaying. The Sun and the planets are attracted to each other only, there is no repulsion.
An object with net magnetic polarization is not the same as an object which does not have net magnetic polarization. A piece of iron that is not magnetized still contains magnetic poles but those poles are all at random orientations to each other and thus cancel out any forces they could produce on other pieces of unmagnetized iron.
The magnet on the right has 3 red poles and only two black poles. Such a magnet cannot exist.
Yes there is, watch the video . Understand the mechanics of whats happening in the video. r=F1+(F1+F2) That maths would go with that guys video.
It was an example drawing took about 30 seconds to ''knock up''. And consequently I had not seen that video until I just provided, thought it was just going show the likewise polarities, but it shows my N-field.
Its not just about magnetism, it is the N-field I described.
P.s Did you watch the video? He didn't understand the physics/mechanics but I understand the mechanics .
That's not how planet orbits work so it's irrelevant any discussion about the planets. The planets are not in any way designed like the magnets in that video. We know how orbits work.
Ok, I am going off now but I want to leave you with a thought and a simple experiment that shows how we think orbits are , but actually isn't. At the present we think planets are trying to travel a straight line but can't because of gravity so as long as the velocity is kept constant, the planet will follow a curvature around a body. I agree totally that would make sense if it wasn't for a simple experiment. Now in the diagram is a representation of Einsteins gravity , if you hit the ball hard it will try to travel straight but because of the string hold (gravity) the ball will follow a curvature path around the pole. However at the bottom of the pole I have attached a fishing reel which has the string on its spool . By turning the handle of the reel I representing the pull off gravity. What will happen to the ball when I start reeling in?
You make it sound as if stars and planets "try" to keep objects in orbit around them at a constant distance by repelling them if they get too close and attracting them if they move too far away. If that was true, then there would only be one viable orbit for any given object. We know that such is not the case. The Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth whereas Phobos is slowly moving towards Mars. We know from artificial objects sent into space that there is not any one single stable orbit. The Space Shuttle, for example could operate in an orbit ranging anywhere from 320 to 650 kilometers above the Earth's surface. If your theory was true, then the Space Shuttle should have experienced a force trying to keep it from getting too close or too far away from Earth. Nothing of the sort has been detected.