0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
By using solely definition we would never reach conclusions of things we do not know .
Although an object measures neutral, we should not take away the very fact that the object still contains atoms charges of opposite polarities.
In earlier discussion you said yes, the opposite charges of two objects would be attracted to each other.
Measuring an objects charge being neutral just means you are measuring the equilibrium constant, anything different than the constant is then noted to have a net charge.
I think that it is only the inertia that is stopping my objects moving towards each other by the means of charge.
A neutral object still has the properties of charge regardless of their measured state.
Your still visualising things as objects, I ''do not see'' the object, I am ''seeing'' the fields only .
Because if I move a magnet in a copper coil I create electricity, so spinning is moving from ''where I come from'' .
Quote from: Thebox on 22/09/2017 20:19:47By using solely definition we would never reach conclusions of things we do not know . You don't make new discoveries by changing the definition of a word. You make new discoveries through experimentation and observation. You have done neither of those things. All you have are assertions, not evidence to support your assertions.
Do you think I have the means, support and equipment to carry out the necessarily experimental tests?
There is no doubt in my mind if shown proof I would gladly accept the proof.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/09/2017 20:35:53Do you think I have the means, support and equipment to carry out the necessarily experimental tests?If you don't have the means to perform the necessary confirmatory experiments then you should stop making assertions as if they were facts. Until you get hard evidence, all you have is speculation. There is absolutely no reason to accept your claims without the needed evidence. Now back to something that you said earlier:QuoteThere is no doubt in my mind if shown proof I would gladly accept the proof.I want to see if this statement is indeed true. Would you like for me to show you how particle physicists know the antiproton is real? I'm going to assume that you are not actually a conspiracy theorist and therefore the only reason you doubt the existence of the majority of particles is because you don't know how they were discovered. Take a look at this page which describes how antiprotons were discovered: http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/october-2009/antiproton-discoveryCERN has built a machine specifically designed to generate antiprotons: https://home.cern/about/accelerators/antiproton-deceleratorThe Baryon Antibaryon Symmetry Experiment clearly demonstrated that protons and antiprotons have the same mass by comparing their behavior in magnetic fields: https://home.cern/about/updates/2015/08/base-compares-protons-antiprotons-high-precision
Ok, that was quite an interesting read. However I think I have an answer to a question that maybe as not been asked before. I am assuming that all fields spin. I am also assuming that the field of the proton beam at the metal also spins. I presume the anti-proton which as the exact same mass as a proton, is the same proton from the emitted beam. I assume that the force of impact onto the metals field reversed the spin cycle to turn the once positive proton into a negative anti-proton. However these anti-protons could quite happily pair with a proton because they would be opposite labels. Of course it is only supposition without any real proof. But just a thought for you to consider.
Quote from: Thebox on 23/09/2017 00:31:49Ok, that was quite an interesting read. However I think I have an answer to a question that maybe as not been asked before. I am assuming that all fields spin. I am also assuming that the field of the proton beam at the metal also spins. I presume the anti-proton which as the exact same mass as a proton, is the same proton from the emitted beam. I assume that the force of impact onto the metals field reversed the spin cycle to turn the once positive proton into a negative anti-proton. However these anti-protons could quite happily pair with a proton because they would be opposite labels. Of course it is only supposition without any real proof. But just a thought for you to consider. That would violate conservation of electric charge. You can't flip a positive charge to a negative charge like that.
I can turn a nail into a magnet by hitting it with a hammer so why not? Strange things do happen in Physics.
Well technically if you can't show something to be wrong then there may be a chance that the something is true. It is not me who is and keeps ignoring things that may be true.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/09/2017 00:11:05Well technically if you can't show something to be wrong then there may be a chance that the something is true. It is not me who is and keeps ignoring things that may be true. Who cares?In the current case we can prove you are wrong, and have done so.Mass isn't proportional to charge.And you do keep ignoring that fact.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2017 14:35:15Quote from: Thebox on 22/09/2017 00:11:05Well technically if you can't show something to be wrong then there may be a chance that the something is true. It is not me who is and keeps ignoring things that may be true. Who cares?In the current case we can prove you are wrong, and have done so.Mass isn't proportional to charge.And you do keep ignoring that fact.Ignoring it? or thoroughly testing it out to make sure in my mind that there i nothing missed?
Quote from: Thebox on 23/09/2017 15:00:39Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/09/2017 14:35:15Quote from: Thebox on 22/09/2017 00:11:05Well technically if you can't show something to be wrong then there may be a chance that the something is true. It is not me who is and keeps ignoring things that may be true. Who cares?In the current case we can prove you are wrong, and have done so.Mass isn't proportional to charge.And you do keep ignoring that fact.Ignoring it? or thoroughly testing it out to make sure in my mind that there i nothing missed?You are not in a position to test it unless you have access to a mass spectrometer.Since it was shown to be wrong in post 10, all your subsequent posts about it have been ignoring reality- there's nothing to "test".
A Neutron does not logical fit into an atoms structure...
Quote from: Thebox on 23/09/2017 15:44:17A Neutron does not logical fit into an atoms structure...Neutrons are of key importance to the stability of atomic nuclei. They experience the strong nuclear force and as such contribute to the binding energy of a nucleus. The helium-2 nucleus, which is only a pair of protons held together by the strong nuclear force, is extremely unstable and decays with a half-life of less than 10-9 seconds. Adding a single neutron to that nucleus, however, gives the stable helium-3 nucleus. Without neutrons, we wouldn't exist.
The problem is the Neutron can not be logically correct.
If (P) is attracted to (E) and (E) is attracted to (P) then what is (N) attracted too?
It seems rather strange that (N) manages to distribute itself evenly amongst (E) and (P) without having any mechanism to do so.
The logic of the Neutron fails on this very reason.
Can you explain anything different?
Added- Where it makes sense that (P) + (E) = N and F²(You have ignored the 1/2 mass I mentioned!)
added- If in one hand I have a handful of (E) and the other hand a handful of (P) and in your hand a handful of (N) , We simultaneous throw them into the air. (P) and (E) will ''stick'' together, (N) will stay separated. Yes or no?
If you heat metal it get's "heavier".I tried it with a nail and electronic mini scales. About 1/3 heavier after 20 seconds with a lighter.Anyone know why?
Some people like myself need the hands on experience before things can be accepted.
Quote from: Thebox on 21/09/2017 23:52:14Some people like myself need the hands on experience before things can be accepted. Well you are not doing science then.You will never get "hands on" experience of subatomic particles.Quote from: Thebox on 21/09/2017 23:52:14 There is no doubt in my mind if shown proof I would gladly accept the proof.Also I'm pretty sure I already showed you the evidence of positrons ( the tracks they leave in cloud chambers) and you refused to accept it.Why tell the lie about your acceptance?