0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Off we go into la-la land again.And you were doing so well...Pity.
Answer this please, how could a Quark be attracted to a Quark if the Quarks were positive charged?To quote your earlier comment''And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...''
Quote from: Thebox on 04/02/2016 20:05:06Answer this please, how could a Quark be attracted to a Quark if the Quarks were positive charged?To quote your earlier comment''And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...''And just where did you ever get the idea that Quarks are positive?That is totally preposterous. Quarks in themselves encompass all 3 forces of nature and are neutral within themselves. Positive and negative charges arise a full two levels of complexity away.First the quarks get together to form a Neutron by splitting the 3 in 1 forces into 2. The strong and the electroweak. At this stage there is still no polarity. A neutron is neutral. It is another level above this that polarity comes into existence when the electroweak force is split into the weak and electromagnetic force by releasing into the Universe an electron and a neutrino.That is the stage that positive and negative come into existence. It is an emergent quality of complexity that is removed from the just Quark level.Quarks on their own do not even carry a full equal neutral charge let alone positive and negative.I do read anything you or anyone else comes up with, with an open mind.That is why I can tell you that your ideas stem from false assumptions.If you don't understand the basics to start with, then you are building skyscrapers on a base of sand.The tide will always come back in and that sand will move.
Quote from: Space Flow on 04/02/2016 22:04:56Quote from: Thebox on 04/02/2016 20:05:06Answer this please, how could a Quark be attracted to a Quark if the Quarks were positive charged?To quote your earlier comment''And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...''And just where did you ever get the idea that Quarks are positive?That is totally preposterous. Quarks in themselves encompass all 3 forces of nature and are neutral within themselves. Positive and negative charges arise a full two levels of complexity away.First the quarks get together to form a Neutron by splitting the 3 in 1 forces into 2. The strong and the electroweak. At this stage there is still no polarity. A neutron is neutral. It is another level above this that polarity comes into existence when the electroweak force is split into the weak and electromagnetic force by releasing into the Universe an electron and a neutrino.That is the stage that positive and negative come into existence. It is an emergent quality of complexity that is removed from the just Quark level.Quarks on their own do not even carry a full equal neutral charge let alone positive and negative.I do read anything you or anyone else comes up with, with an open mind.That is why I can tell you that your ideas stem from false assumptions.If you don't understand the basics to start with, then you are building skyscrapers on a base of sand.The tide will always come back in and that sand will move.You are mistaken, 3 quarks adjoin to become a proton, a proton is said to be positive charged, the electron shell is said to be negative charged, and the neutron for some reason they placed inside the electron shell,.However they are also mistaken, quarks are negative because positive and positive repel.
Quote from: Thebox on 04/02/2016 22:58:58Quote from: Space Flow on 04/02/2016 22:04:56Quote from: Thebox on 04/02/2016 20:05:06Answer this please, how could a Quark be attracted to a Quark if the Quarks were positive charged?To quote your earlier comment''And yet I totally agree that positive charges repel...''And just where did you ever get the idea that Quarks are positive?That is totally preposterous. Quarks in themselves encompass all 3 forces of nature and are neutral within themselves. Positive and negative charges arise a full two levels of complexity away.First the quarks get together to form a Neutron by splitting the 3 in 1 forces into 2. The strong and the electroweak. At this stage there is still no polarity. A neutron is neutral. It is another level above this that polarity comes into existence when the electroweak force is split into the weak and electromagnetic force by releasing into the Universe an electron and a neutrino.That is the stage that positive and negative come into existence. It is an emergent quality of complexity that is removed from the just Quark level.Quarks on their own do not even carry a full equal neutral charge let alone positive and negative.I do read anything you or anyone else comes up with, with an open mind.That is why I can tell you that your ideas stem from false assumptions.If you don't understand the basics to start with, then you are building skyscrapers on a base of sand.The tide will always come back in and that sand will move.You are mistaken, 3 quarks adjoin to become a proton, a proton is said to be positive charged, the electron shell is said to be negative charged, and the neutron for some reason they placed inside the electron shell,.However they are also mistaken, quarks are negative because positive and positive repel. Positively charged particles do push apart from each other, but at very, very close ranges, the strong force can overcome the electrostatic repulsion. But only to a point. Up and down quarks have different charges (+2/3 and –1/3), a neutron contains 2/3–1/3–1/3 = 0 charge and protons contain 2/3+2/3–1/3 = 1 charge. I am unaware of any particles made of three positively or three negatively charged quarks.Also atomic nuclei containing more than one proton must have at least one neutron for the strong force to win over the electrostatic repulsion.Can you at least try to do some research about what scientists say before saying that they are wrong?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interactionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HadronI know that wikipedia uses a lot of jargon, so I also highly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B015EL0QRG/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1
[ Invalid Attachment ] OK I admit defeat. You sir have an impregnable force field against facts, logic and common sense.
A positive Cat in a negative box, can you hear the cat's screams emitting from the box.
Have you ever considered the firmament of the mind is in your head?Open minded is an open door,
Ok young fella..I assume you must be young as you appear to have a lot to learn.One last try.
He's certainly not stupid, just so very fixated on a couple false mental images that he becomes unable to reason with any other position.
While he continually demands answers from us, I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for him to answer those few you just asked of him.Just saying...................................
So please enlighten me.What do all these measurements of time that we use and compare to each other, that consistently produce data that agrees with our theory of time, actually mean by your definition.And if they are not related to time itself, then what are they related to.I'm listening. Convince me.
If you are really saying that time itself has nothing to do with the way we test and measure its characteristics than how would you measure and test your concept of time?
So how can I get real data to help me first understand time?
You can get real data from time, and hopefully to help you understand time, by using any camcorder that is continuously recording.
Quote from: Space Flow on Today at 08:09:43So how can I get real data to help me first understand time?You can get real data from time, and hopefully to help you understand time, by using any camcorder that is continuously recording.
Quote from: Space Flow on 10 February 2016, 14:10:07If you are really saying that time itself has nothing to do with the way we test and measure its characteristics than how would you measure and test your concept of time?So how can I get real data to help me first understand time?
Quote from: Thebox on 10/02/2016 22:16:09You can get real data from time, and hopefully to help you understand time, by using any camcorder that is continuously recording.Remember that I know nothing here.I want to know and understand. I work in the film industry and am familiar with cameras. Your answer to my question did not make me understand.Quote from: Thebox on 10/02/2016 22:16:09Quote from: Space Flow on Today at 08:09:43So how can I get real data to help me first understand time?You can get real data from time, and hopefully to help you understand time, by using any camcorder that is continuously recording.How? What is the experiment you propose I do with a camcorder, and what predicted data do you say I will get to prove what?Quote from: Space Flow on 10/02/2016 21:09:43Quote from: Space Flow on 10 February 2016, 14:10:07If you are really saying that time itself has nothing to do with the way we test and measure its characteristics than how would you measure and test your concept of time?So how can I get real data to help me first understand time?This is the question I as your student have posed. I need to get inside your head. I have to understand what time is and how it works. You are my teacher. So teach me.
In understanding time , it is important to understand what time is and all the aspects of measuring time.
You can get real data from time, and hopefully to help you understand time, by using any camcorder that is continuously recording
Now if you was to travel a journey at speed X away from me and away from the Earth to set distance B, and we calculated this journey took 1 gig of recording space . Both you and I with a synchronised recording start , will both fill the 1 gig simultaneously of the camcorder space. The frames per second remain simultaneous.
How is this connected toQuote from: Thebox on 11/02/2016 11:12:03In understanding time , it is important to understand what time is and all the aspects of measuring time.this.Quote from: Thebox on 10/02/2016 22:16:09You can get real data from time, and hopefully to help you understand time, by using any camcorder that is continuously recordingSo what you are saying is that my camcorder which uses an atomic vibration rate for its timing of frames per second, will behave differently from another atomic device sitting next to it the whole time?Teacher please explain. Why would one atomic process be effected and not another.And how am I to come to your understanding of what time is.See from where I am sitting at the moment, I am very confused. You are telling me to not trust one timing device but to trust another. That would be OK if you gave me some good reason for your strange claim, but you haven't. I am still totally ignorant as to what this concept you call time is and how it can be tested to show that your model is preferable to any other that might exist.I am new to this Universe so don't attribute any knowledge of the way things work to me.I have access to observation and you to explain it to me.Quote from: Thebox on 11/02/2016 11:12:03Now if you was to travel a journey at speed X away from me and away from the Earth to set distance B, and we calculated this journey took 1 gig of recording space . Both you and I with a synchronised recording start , will both fill the 1 gig simultaneously of the camcorder space. The frames per second remain simultaneous.So teacher why is a camcorder a more accurate atomic clock than any other atomic clock?Please help because all the evidence I can find points to that not being true.