[Black hole (OP)]

E=

[Kryptid]

That equation doesn't make sense. You can't put a physical objects like electrons and protons into an equation.

[Black hole (OP)]

That equation doesn't make sense. You can't put a physical objects like electrons and protons into an equation.

Of course not but you can create a physics formula that describes the physics without any falsities and very simple to understand instead of energy equivalents that come across as nonsense to most people .

Everyone can understand that an atoms components are composed of Protons and Electrons and atoms have a volume .

Atoms are energy are they not ?

Of course you can also expand on this and do numbers if you like but this is easy to understand and also applies to quantum fields emitted by the convergence of a proton and electron . 

I hope that Bogey person reads this thread !

[Kryptid]

Of course not but you can create a physics formula that describes the physics without any falsities and very simple to understand instead of energy equivalents that come across as nonsense to most people .

No, it's still nonsense.

Atoms are energy are they not ?

No, energy is a property of atoms. They are not literally energy.

[BilboGrabbins]

That equation doesn't make sense. You can't put a physical objects like electrons and protons into an equation.

Of course not but you can create a physics formula that describes the physics without any falsities and very simple to understand instead of energy equivalents that come across as nonsense to most people .

Everyone can understand that an atoms components are composed of Protons and Electrons and atoms have a volume .

Atoms are energy are they not ?

Of course you can also expand on this and do numbers if you like but this is easy to understand and also applies to quantum fields emitted by the convergence of a proton and electron . 

I hope that Bogey person reads this thread !

You've been told this isn't how you make an equation. Worst yet if we did entertain an equation of this sort, the dimensions are utterly wrong. It's strange as well you divide it with volume. You do this for energy density, not energy.

[Kryptid]

You've been told this isn't how you make an equation. Worst yet if we did entertain an equation of this sort, the dimensions are utterly wrong. It's strange as well you divide it with volume. You do this for energy density, not energy.

He's done this exact same kind of nonsense with his equations in the past, justifying it by saying that they aren't supposed to work like normal equations but are instead suppose to illustrate the basic physics principles (or some similar gobbledeegook).

[Black hole (OP)]

That equation doesn't make sense. You can't put a physical objects like electrons and protons into an equation.

Of course not but you can create a physics formula that describes the physics without any falsities and very simple to understand instead of energy equivalents that come across as nonsense to most people .

Everyone can understand that an atoms components are composed of Protons and Electrons and atoms have a volume .

Atoms are energy are they not ?

Of course you can also expand on this and do numbers if you like but this is easy to understand and also applies to quantum fields emitted by the convergence of a proton and electron . 

I hope that Bogey person reads this thread !

You've been told this isn't how you make an equation. Worst yet if we did entertain an equation of this sort, the dimensions are utterly wrong. It's strange as well you divide it with volume. You do this for energy density, not energy.

An equation is an exact measure not a physical representation !

If you'd read I said you could use numbers if you like !

I'll explain even simpler although the original is easy to follow .



Now even if I cram a few more smarties into the tube , it is still

Basic physics but if you want go into technicality which this thread wasn't aimed , we could discuss values .

[Kryptid]

If you'd read I said you could use numbers if you like !

You can't not use numbers.

[Black hole (OP)]

If you'd read I said you could use numbers if you like !

You can't not use numbers.

Are you trying to explain energy and mass to somebody who has interest or a student who is likely to dig up roads for a living ?

Fundamental education is simpler and easier , additionally it eliminates the smarties from the dime bars .

The education sector costs millions in funding , why waste valuable and expensive education on dime bars ?

If they can't understand that smarties have mass and an energy equivalent , they are dime bars and need educating differently instead of stereotypical .

Added yes we can use mass which has numbers !

[Kryptid]

Are you trying to explain energy and mass to somebody who has interest or a student who is likely to dig up roads for a living ?

Fundamental education is simpler and easier , additionally it eliminates the smarties from the dime bars .

The education sector costs millions in funding , why waste valuable and expensive education on dime bars ?

If they can't understand that smarties have mass and an energy equivalent , they are dime bars and need educating differently instead of stereotypical .

That doesn't stop my statement from being correct.

[Black hole (OP)]

Are you trying to explain energy and mass to somebody who has interest or a student who is likely to dig up roads for a living ?

Fundamental education is simpler and easier , additionally it eliminates the smarties from the dime bars .

The education sector costs millions in funding , why waste valuable and expensive education on dime bars ?

If they can't understand that smarties have mass and an energy equivalent , they are dime bars and need educating differently instead of stereotypical .

That doesn't stop my statement from being correct.

E==

m=mass
V=volume
t=time
E=energy

Those numbers for example ?

 

[Kryptid]

E==

m=mass
V=volume
t=time
E=energy

Those numbers for example ?

That's better, but it's still not correct. Mass divided by volume is not energy, nor is 1 divided by time energy.

[Black hole (OP)]

E==

m=mass
V=volume
t=time
E=energy

Those numbers for example ?

That's better, but it's still not correct. Mass divided by volume is not energy, nor is 1 divided by time energy.

Not correct only by incorrect understandings !

Consider the original post ! An atom consists of an electron and proton . There is no physics that I am aware of that states the mass of an electron isn't proportional to the mass of a proton ? Of course based on the relativity between a proton and an electron !

Added, mass is energy  , everything in essence is energy relative to space !

[Kryptid]

Not correct only by incorrect understandings !

No, it just straight up isn't correct. The relationship between mass and energy is already known to be E=mc².

There is no physics that I am aware of that states the mass of an electron isn't proportional to the mass of a proton

What does that even mean? The mass of the two are completely different.

[Black hole (OP)]

Not correct only by incorrect understandings !

No, it just straight up isn't correct. The relationship between mass and energy is already known to be E=mc².

There is no physics that I am aware of that states the mass of an electron isn't proportional to the mass of a proton

What does that even mean? The mass of the two are completely different.

  That is not true , we can't measure the forces between the proton and electron , we don't know the mass .

[Kryptid]

That is not true , we can't measure the forces between the proton and electron , we don't know the mass .

We can measure their masses by measuring how much a beam of protons or electrons are deflected in a magnetic field.

The fact that you don't know this only further shows that you ain't a physics professor.

[Black hole (OP)]

That is not true , we can't measure the forces between the proton and electron , we don't know the mass .

We can measure their masses by measuring how much a beam of protons or electrons are deflected in a magnetic field.

The fact that you don't know this only further shows that you ain't a physics professor.

Really ? You are claiming you can separate the atomic force and create an electron or proton beam ?

I very much doubt that and I know physics can't do this because a single pole beam                                                 would have no momentum because the specifics of the Higgs field would constraint that beams flow !

I really think you are thinking too deep on what is written rather than simplicity .

If you was teaching a primary school student science you would want easy learning wouldn't you ?

[Kryptid]

You are claiming you can separate the atomic force and create an electron or proton beam ?

Yes, because it's done on a regular basis. Proton beam therapy is a cancer treatment, whereas cathode rays are made of electrons.

I very much doubt that and I know physics can't do this because a single pole beam would have no momentum because the specifics of the Higgs field would constraint that beams flow !

Too bad, the existence of proton beam therapy and cathode rays proves you wrong. Your claim of the beams having no momentum is nonsense, as usual. Anything with energy can have momentum.

[Black hole (OP)]

You are claiming you can separate the atomic force and create an electron or proton beam ?

Yes, because it's done on a regular basis. Proton beam therapy is a cancer treatment, whereas cathode rays are made of electrons.

I very much doubt that and I know physics can't do this because a single pole beam would have no momentum because the specifics of the Higgs field would constraint that beams flow !

Too bad, the existence of proton beam therapy and cathode rays proves you wrong. Your claim of the beams having no momentum is nonsense, as usual. Anything with energy can have momentum.

Of course we'll just ignore Newtons Third Law and Coulombs law then and forget that a Higgs field or atoms potentially have the components to push back ?

Can you please provide a link to your claims ?

You'll find that what you are suggesting are not true proton beams or electrons beams  , the physics of the universe does not allow for the momentum of free electrons or protons .

[Kryptid]

Of course we'll just ignore Newtons Third Law and Coulombs law then and forget that a Higgs field or atoms potentially have the components to push back ?

Nothing about free protons or free electrons violates any of the laws of physics. You'd know that if you were an actual physics professor (but you're not, are you?).

Can you please provide a link to your claims ?

https://www.britannica.com/science/cathode-ray

You'll find that what you are suggesting are not true proton beams or electrons beams  , the physics of the universe does not allow for the momentum of free electrons or protons .

And so I see that you are still stuck on that same nonsense about protons and electrons. You talked about this same thing when you were here last time. And yet you think I can't recognize that you're Thebox? I'd straight up ban you, but I need to convince the other moderators that it's you first. Unfortunately, I'm occupied with other things at the moment so that will have to wait. Enjoy your time here while you have it.