Post by: guest39538 on 16/09/2017 14:47:19
m12.jpg (24.08 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 2983 times)In the above diagram I have drew the representation of two directly proportional quantum fields. In the drawing there is no object of solidity such as a planet. Both fields offer solidity to each other.
If we look at m1, the negative part of the field wants to expand across the m2 field by the means of travelling along the positive field of m2. Vice versus the m2 negative field wants to travel across the positive of the m1 . However likewise charges prevents this from happening giving the field its solidity.
This also applying the other way around .
So I propose that the mass of an object is actually a property of the field and not of the object. The field being a property of the object but the mass a property of the field.
Post by: guest39538 on 16/09/2017 15:00:38
merge.jpg (25.22 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3252 times)In this diagram, which represent a positive and negative field, we can easily see the motion involved and why two opposite fields merge to create the N-field.
N-field = q1+q2
f1.jpg (26.34 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3195 times) g1.jpg (61.7 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3233 times)If it were not for the mechanics of N, we would not have G. I admire the mechanics quite cool.
P.s I am now convinced, having much clearer thoughts on the matter.
added- Imagine having either a handful of electrons or a handful of protons, imagine trying to squeeze these together. On their own they are effectively an anti-matter pairing. They would be mass-less relative to each other. They would have no gravity and not ''stick'' together.
Only when we combine the two opposites do we get a stable N-field and G.
added- Ze mass-less individual particles become merged to form a mass particle N. Ze individual particles have no mass in respect for ze ''call-signs'' relative to their equal polarity. Equal polarities having ze repulsive properties , in due respect to this ,we must view likewise polarities as being relative mass-less towards each other. We can consider that only when discussing ze opposite ''call signs'', does mass play a role in respect to their opposite attract status.
Ze gravity between two bodies being that ze gravity is a property of ze N-field.
added- We could not find the answer to gravity because we were looking at gravity from the wrong angle. We were looking at it in a sense of a gravitational field or gravitron's . This was/is the wrong angle. I am looking at gravity in a sense that it is an action created by existing fields.
I conclude that when two opposite polarity quantum fields merge, this then gives the merged fields gravity on other merged fields. I explain that all atoms have this N-field which is this merged positive and negative individual fields.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/09/2017 15:20:44
Post by: guest39538 on 17/09/2017 15:21:57
I think therefore I imagine the spacial field (Higg's) to be a dielectric field and the ''Ether'' medium for other fields.
Post by: The Spoon on 17/09/2017 20:27:53
Why are you using 'ze' instead of 'the'?
In this diagram, which represent a positive and negative field, we can easily see the motion involved and why two opposite fields merge to create the N-field.
N-field = q1+q2
If it were not for the mechanics of N, we would not have G. I admire the mechanics quite cool.
P.s I am now convinced, having much clearer thoughts on the matter.
added- Imagine having either a handful of electrons or a handful of protons, imagine trying to squeeze these together. On their own they are effectively an anti-matter pairing. They would be mass-less relative to each other. They would have no gravity and not ''stick'' together.
Only when we combine the two opposites do we get a stable N-field and G.
added- Ze mass-less individual particles become merged to form a mass particle N. Ze individual particles have no mass in respect for ze ''call-signs'' relative to their equal polarity. Equal polarities having ze repulsive properties , in due respect to this ,we must view likewise polarities as being relative mass-less towards each other. We can consider that only when discussing ze opposite ''call signs'', does mass play a role in respect to their opposite attract status.
Ze gravity between two bodies being that ze gravity is a property of ze N-field.
added- We could not find the answer to gravity because we were looking at gravity from the wrong angle. We were looking at it in a sense of a gravitational field or gravitron's . This was/is the wrong angle. I am looking at gravity in a sense that it is an action created by existing fields.
I conclude that when two opposite polarity quantum fields merge, this then gives the merged fields gravity on other merged fields. I explain that all atoms have this N-field which is this merged positive and negative individual fields.
Post by: guest39538 on 17/09/2017 23:42:03
Trying to think like Einstein would think, ze word just sets my thinking ''tone''.Why are you using 'ze' instead of 'the'?
In this diagram, which represent a positive and negative field, we can easily see the motion involved and why two opposite fields merge to create the N-field.
N-field = q1+q2
If it were not for the mechanics of N, we would not have G. I admire the mechanics quite cool.
P.s I am now convinced, having much clearer thoughts on the matter.
added- Imagine having either a handful of electrons or a handful of protons, imagine trying to squeeze these together. On their own they are effectively an anti-matter pairing. They would be mass-less relative to each other. They would have no gravity and not ''stick'' together.
Only when we combine the two opposites do we get a stable N-field and G.
added- Ze mass-less individual particles become merged to form a mass particle N. Ze individual particles have no mass in respect for ze ''call-signs'' relative to their equal polarity. Equal polarities having ze repulsive properties , in due respect to this ,we must view likewise polarities as being relative mass-less towards each other. We can consider that only when discussing ze opposite ''call signs'', does mass play a role in respect to their opposite attract status.
Ze gravity between two bodies being that ze gravity is a property of ze N-field.
added- We could not find the answer to gravity because we were looking at gravity from the wrong angle. We were looking at it in a sense of a gravitational field or gravitron's . This was/is the wrong angle. I am looking at gravity in a sense that it is an action created by existing fields.
I conclude that when two opposite polarity quantum fields merge, this then gives the merged fields gravity on other merged fields. I explain that all atoms have this N-field which is this merged positive and negative individual fields.
Post by: The Spoon on 18/09/2017 19:39:06
That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Einstein was German and I would have thought in German. 'Ze' is cartoonish representation of the way Einstein spoke based on depictions of mad scientists that parodied Einstein. You really think that by writing 'ze' instead of 'the' we believe that you are thinking like Einstein? You are not. You are just demonstrating you are are an ignorant clown.Trying to think like Einstein would think, ze word just sets my thinking ''tone''.Why are you using 'ze' instead of 'the'?
In this diagram, which represent a positive and negative field, we can easily see the motion involved and why two opposite fields merge to create the N-field.
N-field = q1+q2
If it were not for the mechanics of N, we would not have G. I admire the mechanics quite cool.
P.s I am now convinced, having much clearer thoughts on the matter.
added- Imagine having either a handful of electrons or a handful of protons, imagine trying to squeeze these together. On their own they are effectively an anti-matter pairing. They would be mass-less relative to each other. They would have no gravity and not ''stick'' together.
Only when we combine the two opposites do we get a stable N-field and G.
added- Ze mass-less individual particles become merged to form a mass particle N. Ze individual particles have no mass in respect for ze ''call-signs'' relative to their equal polarity. Equal polarities having ze repulsive properties , in due respect to this ,we must view likewise polarities as being relative mass-less towards each other. We can consider that only when discussing ze opposite ''call signs'', does mass play a role in respect to their opposite attract status.
Ze gravity between two bodies being that ze gravity is a property of ze N-field.
added- We could not find the answer to gravity because we were looking at gravity from the wrong angle. We were looking at it in a sense of a gravitational field or gravitron's . This was/is the wrong angle. I am looking at gravity in a sense that it is an action created by existing fields.
I conclude that when two opposite polarity quantum fields merge, this then gives the merged fields gravity on other merged fields. I explain that all atoms have this N-field which is this merged positive and negative individual fields.
Post by: guest39538 on 18/09/2017 23:37:52
I love these type of posts that try to troll the poster. You have not got a clue how I think or what I can think like or what style I can think in. Just because you have no variation in your thinking patterns do not presume somebody else can not have different thinking patterns on demand. It is like being an actor and adapting to the role getting into character, a sort of performance art but only to a selective audience.That is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Einstein was German and I would have thought in German. 'Ze' is cartoonish representation of the way Einstein spoke based on depictions of mad scientists that parodied Einstein. You really think that by writing 'ze' instead of 'the' we believe that you are thinking like Einstein? You are not. You are just demonstrating you are are an ignorant clown.Trying to think like Einstein would think, ze word just sets my thinking ''tone''.Why are you using 'ze' instead of 'the'?
In this diagram, which represent a positive and negative field, we can easily see the motion involved and why two opposite fields merge to create the N-field.
N-field = q1+q2
If it were not for the mechanics of N, we would not have G. I admire the mechanics quite cool.
P.s I am now convinced, having much clearer thoughts on the matter.
added- Imagine having either a handful of electrons or a handful of protons, imagine trying to squeeze these together. On their own they are effectively an anti-matter pairing. They would be mass-less relative to each other. They would have no gravity and not ''stick'' together.
Only when we combine the two opposites do we get a stable N-field and G.
added- Ze mass-less individual particles become merged to form a mass particle N. Ze individual particles have no mass in respect for ze ''call-signs'' relative to their equal polarity. Equal polarities having ze repulsive properties , in due respect to this ,we must view likewise polarities as being relative mass-less towards each other. We can consider that only when discussing ze opposite ''call signs'', does mass play a role in respect to their opposite attract status.
Ze gravity between two bodies being that ze gravity is a property of ze N-field.
added- We could not find the answer to gravity because we were looking at gravity from the wrong angle. We were looking at it in a sense of a gravitational field or gravitron's . This was/is the wrong angle. I am looking at gravity in a sense that it is an action created by existing fields.
I conclude that when two opposite polarity quantum fields merge, this then gives the merged fields gravity on other merged fields. I explain that all atoms have this N-field which is this merged positive and negative individual fields.
I watched a video once of the history of Albert Einstein, it was like watching a movie and I could relate to his style of thinking.
Alas poor Mr Spoon, I feel I know him quite well!. (like everybody in science does).
P.s I google translated the word ''the'' to German, I didn't know it was Das or Der, always thought it was ze. Sorry Mr Spoon.
added - If M=1kg what is the combined weight/force of both charge signs of the mass ?