Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 11:51:15
So is ADHD really just adults don't have defence? I am sure these little brats would soon stop misbehaving with a clip around the ear.
What do you think?
Post by: The Spoon on 02/10/2017 12:24:09
In the UK a child could hit there parents several times and it is ok because it is ADHD. The parents are not allowed to hit back or they will be arrested.a) That this is not a new theory just reactionary nonsense.
So is ADHD really just adults don't have defence? I am sure these little brats would soon stop misbehaving with a clip around the ear.
What do you think?
b) That this is just a piss poor attempt at trolling the forum to desperately get attention
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 12:29:58
ADHD is a science, and this is not trolling or anything as such , it is a serious question. I read an article on facebook about a guy who calmed down a mothers child who had ADHD.In the UK a child could hit there parents several times and it is ok because it is ADHD. The parents are not allowed to hit back or they will be arrested.a) That this is not a new theory just reactionary nonsense.
So is ADHD really just adults don't have defence? I am sure these little brats would soon stop misbehaving with a clip around the ear.
What do you think?
b) That this is just a piss poor attempt at trolling the forum to desperately get attention
Now tell me if I am wrong, people can be ''beaten'' into submission?
Don't call me out unless you can back up your claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_sciences
https://www.facebook.com/spotlondon/photos/pcb.689185167944723/689185124611394/?type=3&theater
Post by: The Spoon on 02/10/2017 13:18:34
ADHD is a medical condition, not a 'science'.ADHD is a science, and this is not trolling or anything as such , it is a serious question. I read an article on facebook about a guy who calmed down a mothers child who had ADHD.In the UK a child could hit there parents several times and it is ok because it is ADHD. The parents are not allowed to hit back or they will be arrested.a) That this is not a new theory just reactionary nonsense.
So is ADHD really just adults don't have defence? I am sure these little brats would soon stop misbehaving with a clip around the ear.
What do you think?
b) That this is just a piss poor attempt at trolling the forum to desperately get attention
Now tell me if I am wrong, people can be ''beaten'' into submission?
Don't call me out unless you can back up your claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_sciences
https://www.facebook.com/spotlondon/photos/pcb.689185167944723/689185124611394/?type=3&theater
You have made the extraordinary claim that the use of violence against children with this condition is an effective treatment (based it seems, on a Facebook post, once again demonstrating that you do not really understand what constitutes evidence). Therefore, the onus is on you to prove it.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 13:23:58
I have not made such a claim, that is why I put beaten in quotation. How is ADHD a medical condition? and even if it were, then medical conditions are a part of science so you would still be wrong.ADHD is a medical condition, not a 'science'.ADHD is a science, and this is not trolling or anything as such , it is a serious question. I read an article on facebook about a guy who calmed down a mothers child who had ADHD.In the UK a child could hit there parents several times and it is ok because it is ADHD. The parents are not allowed to hit back or they will be arrested.a) That this is not a new theory just reactionary nonsense.
So is ADHD really just adults don't have defence? I am sure these little brats would soon stop misbehaving with a clip around the ear.
What do you think?
b) That this is just a piss poor attempt at trolling the forum to desperately get attention
Now tell me if I am wrong, people can be ''beaten'' into submission?
Don't call me out unless you can back up your claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_sciences
https://www.facebook.com/spotlondon/photos/pcb.689185167944723/689185124611394/?type=3&theater
You have made the extraordinary claim that the use of violence against children with this condition is an effective treatment (based it seems, on a Facebook post, once again demonstrating that you do not really understand what constitutes evidence). Therefore, the onus is on you to prove it.
If a child can all of a sudden calm down to some stranger being nice, then I suggest it is all an attention seeking performance art rather than any sort of medical condition. Vice versus if a ''sufferer'' responds to physical niceness then they will respond to direct punishment.
In the UK parents can not smack their children so the children can and do use this to their advantage. Children are not as stupid as you think, they are the biggest of narcissists.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 13:43:00
Quote
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is associated with the delayed development of five brain regions and should be considered a brain disorder, according to a study published in The Lancet Psychiatry.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170216105919.htm
What about the area of the brain that is affected by strict discipline? Surely along with these five undeveloped areas , there is an area of the brain that understands what is right and wrong because it as experienced punishment for offences?
This area would also be undeveloped if it does not experience the needs to a must. i.e a clip up the ear
added- Putting it one way, if a child hits a parent and the child is not punished in a way that will sink in, then we are condoning this act and learning that child it is ok to hit people.
Post by: The Spoon on 02/10/2017 18:34:42
How is ADHD a medical conditionWhat on earth do you mean? How is ADHD a medical condition? Do you think that a medical condition is something with only physical symptoms?
Your ideas on physical punishment as a way of altering psychological traits are frankly barbaric - what next? A punch in the face for depression? Beat sufferers of bipolar disorder until they bleed?
You also think that physically assaulting children is acceptable. I wonder if you have kids? If you do I would love to find out your true identity so I can let social services know.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/10/2017 20:54:43
In the UK a child could hit there parents several times and it is ok because it is ADHD. The parents are not allowed to hit back or they will be arrested.I think that's just silly.
So is ADHD really just adults don't have defence? I am sure these little brats would soon stop misbehaving with a clip around the ear.
What do you think?
Children with ADHD are typically diagnosed when very young. Too young to be strong enough to do any actual harm.
So the parents don't need "defence" do they?
Post by: Kryptid on 02/10/2017 21:16:21
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 21:30:36
ADHD can continue into adulthood.In the UK a child could hit there parents several times and it is ok because it is ADHD. The parents are not allowed to hit back or they will be arrested.I think that's just silly.
So is ADHD really just adults don't have defence? I am sure these little brats would soon stop misbehaving with a clip around the ear.
What do you think?
Children with ADHD are typically diagnosed when very young. Too young to be strong enough to do any actual harm.
So the parents don't need "defence" do they?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 21:31:32
You can punish a child without hitting them so what is your point?Name one punishment that has real meaning when punishing a child?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/10/2017 21:33:01
ADHD can continue into adulthood.At which point your original point is moot.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 21:33:33
We had the cane and slipper when I was in school, do you think I should have a lawsuit then against our government for the punishment i received when I was a child? Countless other cases as well.How is ADHD a medical conditionWhat on earth do you mean? How is ADHD a medical condition? Do you think that a medical condition is something with only physical symptoms?
Your ideas on physical punishment as a way of altering psychological traits are frankly barbaric - what next? A punch in the face for depression? Beat sufferers of bipolar disorder until they bleed?
You also think that physically assaulting children is acceptable. I wonder if you have kids? If you do I would love to find out your true identity so I can let social services know.
And the bit in red is quite hilarious .
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 21:37:00
But is it not the purpose to stop the adhd before adulthood?ADHD can continue into adulthood.At which point your original point is moot.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/10/2017 21:38:13
Name one punishment that has real meaning when punishing a child?
What do you mean by "real meaning"?
Also LOL at whoever added the "bonkers" tag.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 21:42:13
Well grounding them or taking privileges away from them means very little. So name one thing that has meaning?Name one punishment that has real meaning when punishing a child?
What do you mean by "real meaning"?
Also LOL at whoever added the "bonkers" tag.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/10/2017 21:44:38
Well grounding them or taking privileges away from them means very little.
And you know this how? Do you have any scientific studies to present about the effectiveness of different kinds of punishments? How does one quantify the minimum requirement for an "effective" punishment?
Surely you understand why young children are held to different standards of conduct than adults?
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 21:53:49
I have no scientific studies to show this , it is just an observation over the years and changing in behaviour of the younger generation in general . Our days the younger generation has very little respect. Respect a key to good behaviour from people.Well grounding them or taking privileges away from them means very little.
And you know this how? Do you have any scientific studies to present about the effectiveness of different kinds of punishments? How does one quantify the minimum requirement for an "effective" punishment?
Surely you understand why young children are held to different standards of conduct than adults?
I have no idea how one would quantify a minimal punishment, I am sure though if I mentioned starvation there would be an uproar.
I understand that children our more ''fragile'' than adults but effective punishment works were as some forms do not. ( I must state I never hit my children, they respect my objective parenting).
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/10/2017 21:56:45
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 21:58:51
Are you saying that adults might gain "respect" by hitting children?Define hitting? At what magnitude? What area?
There is a massive difference in a ''clip up the ear'' than a punch in the face.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/10/2017 22:01:07
I have no scientific studies to show this
I didn't think so.
Quote
it is just an observation over the years and changing in behaviour of the younger generation in general . Our days the younger generation has very little respect. Respect a key to good behaviour from people.
Personal observation of a limited section of the population is not objective. That's why scientific studies are important. Even if it does turn out that disrespectful behavior is on the rise, you don't know that it is caused by a change in punishment regimens unless you can properly demonstrate it with scientific studies.
Quote
I have no idea how one would quantify a minimal punishment, I am sure though if I mentioned starvation there would be an uproar.
No one is talking about starvation as a punishment so I don't know what that has to do with anything.
Quote
I understand that children our more ''fragile'' than adults but effective punishment works were as some forms do not. ( I must state I never hit my children, they respect my objective parenting).
"Effective punishment works" is a tautology. If it didn't work, it wouldn't be effective.
So all in all, you merely have claims but no substantiation of them.
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 22:08:19
I don't really have any claims , I am simply having a discussion. It helps with my anxiety and often feelings of loneliness. I preferred it when I was stuck in delusions of grandeur because I felt nothing and was in another place.I have no scientific studies to show this
I didn't think so.Quoteit is just an observation over the years and changing in behaviour of the younger generation in general . Our days the younger generation has very little respect. Respect a key to good behaviour from people.
Personal observation of a limited section of the population is not objective. That's why scientific studies are important. Even if it does turn out that disrespectful behavior is on the rise, you don't know that it is caused by a change in punishment regimens unless you can properly demonstrate it with scientific studies.QuoteI have no idea how one would quantify a minimal punishment, I am sure though if I mentioned starvation there would be an uproar.
No one is talking about starvation as a punishment so I don't know what that has to do with anything.QuoteI understand that children our more ''fragile'' than adults but effective punishment works were as some forms do not. ( I must state I never hit my children, they respect my objective parenting).
"Effective punishment works" is a tautology. If it didn't work, it wouldn't be effective.
So all in all, you merely have claims but no substantiation of them.
I think since there was a change in standards of punishment there has been an increase in attitudes. Often people my age, friends say , ''we were never that disrespectful''.
Of course I have no substantiation of them, although I believe if you did a poll of people between 35 and 45 and asked them about the younger generation, the results would say , yes they have no discipline and are reckless.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/10/2017 22:52:43
I don't really have any claims
This quote right here most certainly is a claim:
Quote
Well grounding them or taking privileges away from them means very little.
Quote
I am simply having a discussion.
A discussion where you make unsupported claims.
Quote
It helps with my anxiety and often feelings of loneliness.
I completely understand that. I went through a similar phase many years ago when I was unemployed. Discussion of things is perfectly fine, just be prepared for the responses you are going to get. If you make a claim, it shouldn't be unexpected for others to ask for evidence of that claim.
Quote
I preferred it when I was stuck in delusions of grandeur because I felt nothing and was in another place.
That's the first I've heard of this. What was that all about?
Quote
I think since there was a change in standards of punishment there has been an increase in attitudes. Often people my age, friends say , ''we were never that disrespectful''.
Of course I have no substantiation of them, although I believe if you did a poll of people between 35 and 45 and asked them about the younger generation, the results would say , yes they have no discipline and are reckless.
I wouldn't be surprised if they did say something like that (I hear similar things where I live), but we don't know if it's objectively true just by asking for people's opinions. A better measure would be to look at crime rates based on generations. Even that wouldn't tell us that a lack of physical discipline is the cause. You would need to do background investigations to see how these criminals were raised and disentangle that from factors like living in poor areas, living in one-parent households, living in crime-stricken areas and the like in order to know what the true cause was.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/10/2017 01:33:23
That's the first I've heard of this. What was that all about?
My Mum and Dad both died within a couple years apart of each other. Unknown to me I stuck my head into the internet world trying to avoid the reality that existed outside of the internet world. I drifted into science where from day one I had my own theories and thought some of the present theories were wrong. I was however really really poor at explaining, I was not quite cognitive. A sort of delusion state that I was always right. However to cut a long story short one day I sort of snapped out of it. This then leading to me to sleep dread and the eventuality of high anxiety and panic attacks. But the tablets I got from the docs, Beta blockers, slowed down myself. Although I still get the occasional flutters of anxiety, I now have control and don't panic out and flight.
However after I snapped out of my rut, I retained quite a bit of the forum knowledge I had learnt. The only difference being, my own notions were much clearer and the knowledge I had learned was much clearer.
I am still a bit rough around the edges with some of my knowledge, but I am certainly getting there and starting to feel a bit mentally stronger than I ever have in my life before.
I feel smarter than I use to be.
I wouldn't be surprised if they did say something like that (I hear similar things where I live), but we don't know if it's objectively true just by asking for people's opinions. A better measure would be to look at crime rates based on generations. Even that wouldn't tell us that a lack of physical discipline is the cause. You would need to do background investigations to see how these criminals were raised and disentangle that from factors like living in poor areas, living in one-parent households, living in crime-stricken areas and the like in order to know what the true cause was.True, we could not know if it was objectively true unless we ran several type polls and looked at years of criminal statistics. My main concern is when you sometimes give your kids idol threats, such as I have told you several times now to stop that , do you want a smack? The kid turns around and says ''you can't smack me because that is child abuse''.
So how would we as society deal with that ''question''? The kids know the threat is an idol threat so how can we even get any sort of discipline when they know ?
A modern kids answer is you can't do that, it is child abuse. So who is in control? the parents or the kids?
Post by: Kryptid on 03/10/2017 04:59:30
My Mum and Dad both died within a couple years apart of each other. Unknown to me I stuck my head into the internet world trying to avoid the reality that existed outside of the internet world. I drifted into science where from day one I had my own theories and thought some of the present theories were wrong. I was however really really poor at explaining, I was not quite cognitive. A sort of delusion state that I was always right. However to cut a long story short one day I sort of snapped out of it. This then leading to me to sleep dread and the eventuality of high anxiety and panic attacks. But the tablets I got from the docs, Beta blockers, slowed down myself. Although I still get the occasional flutters of anxiety, I now have control and don't panic out and flight.
However after I snapped out of my rut, I retained quite a bit of the forum knowledge I had learnt. The only difference being, my own notions were much clearer and the knowledge I had learned was much clearer.
I am still a bit rough around the edges with some of my knowledge, but I am certainly getting there and starting to feel a bit mentally stronger than I ever have in my life before.
I feel smarter than I use to be.
I'm sorry to hear about your parents. Having not been in such a situation, I can't pretend to imagine what that must have been like (though I know it must have been traumatic). I'm glad that you've managed to get some help, medication-wise at least.
On the other hand,, I don't think the "delusion state that I was always right" ever left you...
Quote
My main concern is when you sometimes give your kids idol threats, such as I have told you several times now to stop that , do you want a smack? The kid turns around and says ''you can't smack me because that is child abuse''.
The solution to that is not to give idle threats. Don't say you're going to do something if you have no intention of following through. Think of something that you are willing to do and go with that.
Quote
So how would we as society deal with that ''question''? The kids know the threat is an idol threat so how can we even get any sort of discipline when they know ?
Not all discipline is physical, so there is no dilemma.
Quote
A modern kids answer is you can't do that, it is child abuse. So who is in control? the parents or the kids?
That's up to the parents. You can discipline a child without laying a hand on them, so if they are the ones relinquishing control, it's their fault.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/10/2017 10:28:50
On the other hand,, I don't think the "delusion state that I was always right" ever left you...It still remains to a fraction of a degree but I assure you it mostly as gone away. I am much more cognitive than I was in the past.
Not all discipline is physical, so there is no dilemma.But most none physical discipline fails in my experience. To be honest I do not think we should hit children at all, but what I do think is we should be using objective parenting rather than subjective parenting.
Objective parenting is something I use and have always used with my children. I have tried to get rid of the subjective parenting at an early age. My daughter who is nearly 11 but still in primary school, has been doing high school maths as she is one of the ''smartest cookies in the jar''.
My boy who is 9 is also doing very well.
I think objective parenting is the perfect parenting system and this learns children respect.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/10/2017 15:04:21
It still remains to a fraction of a degree but I assure you it mostly as gone away. I am much more cognitive than I was in the past.
I would hate to imagine that you were once even worse than you are now. In your threads on proposed new physics, you insist that others should be open to the possibility of you being correct while you are not open the possibility of being wrong. You think it is okay to question established theories but it is not okay to question your theories. You accuse us of "not being able to think" and that your theories are "not a matter of belief".Given that you don't have a degree in physics or work as a physicist, it's an awfully arrogant attitude to have to think that you know more than the thousands of people who have a higher education and personal experience in the relevant fields. You have plainly said "I am not wrong". If that doesn't sound like a case of "I'm always right", then I don't know what does.
Quote
But most none physical discipline fails in my experience.
There is the problem. Your personal experiences may not be typical.
Quote
To be honest I do not think we should hit children at all, but what I do think is we should be using objective parenting rather than subjective parenting.
Objective parenting is something I use and have always used with my children. I have tried to get rid of the subjective parenting at an early age. My daughter who is nearly 11 but still in primary school, has been doing high school maths as she is one of the ''smartest cookies in the jar''.
My boy who is 9 is also doing very well.
I think objective parenting is the perfect parenting system and this learns children respect.
What is objective or subjective parenting?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/10/2017 17:13:56
You think it is okay to question established theories but it is not okay to question your theories.Not really, the only theory of mine that I know is true , is my theory and definition on time. My theory does not exclude a ''time dilation''. My theory just changes the semantics to a timing dilation rather than a time dilation.
My N-field theory is all based on present theory and physics. That I think could be true.
My ideas of visible darkness and visible light, darkness being a property of an object, based on observations.
There is not that much I say is an axiom. If I say it is an axiom then I guarantee that it is the last answer in a line of answers.
Objective parenting is where our children don't believe in fairy tales and learn reality at an early age. Where subjective parenting is Santa clause and likes.
There is a lot more to it than that but that is the basic principle. In a simple example imagine a child watching a horror movie. Now that child will be scared if they were taught by subjective parenting, Where in objective parenting the child knows it is actors in make-up etc and is not actually scary. They know what the real ''monsters'' of the world are.
Post by: The Spoon on 03/10/2017 19:52:07
But you keep going on about your 'theories' as though they are and when you are called out you accuse people of trolling.You think it is okay to question established theories but it is not okay to question your theories.Not really, the only theory of mine that I know is true , is my theory and definition on time. My theory does not exclude a ''time dilation''. My theory just changes the semantics to a timing dilation rather than a time dilation.
My N-field theory is all based on present theory and physics. That I think could be true.
My ideas of visible darkness and visible light, darkness being a property of an object, based on observations.
There is not that much I say is an axiom. If I say it is an axiom then I guarantee that it is the last answer in a line of answers.
Objective parenting is where our children don't believe in fairy tales and learn reality at an early age. Where subjective parenting is Santa clause and likes.
There is a lot more to it than that but that is the basic principle. In a simple example imagine a child watching a horror movie. Now that child will be scared if they were taught by subjective parenting, Where in objective parenting the child knows it is actors in make-up etc and is not actually scary. They know what the real ''monsters'' of the world are.
You 'think' your N-Field 'theory' could be true despite people pointing out it is nonsense. You claim it is based on current theories and physics. It is not. It is based on a suoerficial skimming of them and then misapplying them or not understanding them. For example when I questioned you use of dielectric you said 'Secondly I know what dielectric means, well I thought I did until I just checked up on it. I swear wiki keeps changing, never mind' which betrays you just slinging in stuff you think sounds scientific without knowing what it means and your generally sloppy approach. You then bang on about the ether - which does not exist and this has been shown so is not part of 'current theories and physics' - you even pointed out it cant be detected.
Likewise your theories on time. And light and dark. And transparent atoms. You dont care though do you? As long as you get attention and tie other people's time up.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/10/2017 20:16:29
My ideas of visible darkness and visible light, darkness being a property of an object, based on observations.It's still dark in my cellar, and you are still wrong.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/10/2017 22:32:22
You 'think' your N-Field 'theory' could be true despite people pointing out it is nonsense. You claim it is based on current theories and physics. It is not.You are wrong on this, my N-field is based on present information and the very scientific fact that likewise polarities repel and opposite polarities attract. So are you saying they don't and the science is wrong?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2017 07:59:57
No, we are nor questioning the facts.You 'think' your N-Field 'theory' could be true despite people pointing out it is nonsense. You claim it is based on current theories and physics. It is not.You are wrong on this, my N-field is based on present information and the very scientific fact that likewise polarities repel and opposite polarities attract. So are you saying they don't and the science is wrong?
But we do question the ideas you put forward about them.
And that's because some of your ideas are plainly wrong, and none of them is helpful.
Post by: The Spoon on 04/10/2017 09:26:30
Yes likewise polarities attract and opposite attract. However, that does not mean that the application of this fact to your theory makes it correct. You have essentially bolted on something that is true to a load of nonsense.You 'think' your N-Field 'theory' could be true despite people pointing out it is nonsense. You claim it is based on current theories and physics. It is not.You are wrong on this, my N-field is based on present information and the very scientific fact that likewise polarities repel and opposite polarities attract. So are you saying they don't and the science is wrong?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 12:24:53
There is nothing bolted on period. Quite clearly you think the proton itself attracts an electron rather than the truth and the fields are doing the work.Yes likewise polarities attract and opposite attract.You 'think' your N-Field 'theory' could be true despite people pointing out it is nonsense. You claim it is based on current theories and physics. It is not.You are wrong on this, my N-field is based on present information and the very scientific fact that likewise polarities repel and opposite polarities attract. So are you saying they don't and the science is wrong?
You only need the first part of your post. A proton itself does not have a polarity. The field has the polarity the same as a field of a magnet.
You are proverbial talking out of your backside if you think my notion has no foundation or premise .
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 12:27:09
According to you , where according to the information which is not my belief, the possibility of my N-field exists. So it does not matter what you believe, because the facts give my notion possibility.No, we are nor questioning the facts.You 'think' your N-Field 'theory' could be true despite people pointing out it is nonsense. You claim it is based on current theories and physics. It is not.You are wrong on this, my N-field is based on present information and the very scientific fact that likewise polarities repel and opposite polarities attract. So are you saying they don't and the science is wrong?
But we do question the ideas you put forward about them.
And that's because some of your ideas are plainly wrong, and none of them is helpful.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 21:19:05
You are wrong on this, my N-field is based on present information and the very scientific fact that likewise polarities repel and opposite polarities attract. So are you saying they don't and the science is wrong?
(1) "Opposite polarities attract" - This is the part accepted by current science.
(2) "Positive and negative fields merge to produce solidity" - This is the part that you made up.
Show us a single confirmed, observed example of positive and negative fields merging to produce solidity. Don't say something like "it's obvious", "it makes sense" or anything of that nature. Science only cares about testable evidence.
Post by: The Spoon on 04/10/2017 21:52:54
The first sentence makes no sense. I know English is not your first language and it makes it difficult but try to make more effort.According to you , where according to the information which is not my belief, the possibility of my N-field exists. So it does not matter what you believe, because the facts give my notion possibility.No, we are nor questioning the facts.You 'think' your N-Field 'theory' could be true despite people pointing out it is nonsense. You claim it is based on current theories and physics. It is not.You are wrong on this, my N-field is based on present information and the very scientific fact that likewise polarities repel and opposite polarities attract. So are you saying they don't and the science is wrong?
But we do question the ideas you put forward about them.
And that's because some of your ideas are plainly wrong, and none of them is helpful.
No facts support your notion. It is made up semi-literate nonsense.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 21:53:57
AtomsYou are wrong on this, my N-field is based on present information and the very scientific fact that likewise polarities repel and opposite polarities attract. So are you saying they don't and the science is wrong?
(1) "Opposite polarities attract" - This is the part accepted by current science.
(2) "Positive and negative fields merge to produce solidity" - This is the part that you made up.
Show us a single confirmed, observed example of positive and negative fields merging to produce solidity. Don't say something like "it's obvious", "it makes sense" or anything of that nature. Science only cares about testable evidence.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 21:56:19
Atoms
So what experiment was it that determined that atoms are the result of a positive and negative field merging to produce solidity? Who carried it out? What year was it done in?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 22:02:45
What do you mean? I am in a new theories section, the year is 2017 so that is when it was done and I am writing it as we speak.Atoms
So what experiment was it that determined that atoms are the result of a positive and negative field merging to produce solidity? Who carried it out? What year was it done in?
However I know you would never be satisfied with that, so how about we go into the mechanics of it that uses present information?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 22:05:47
What do you mean? I am in a new theories section, the year is 2017 so that is when it was done and I am writing it as we speak.
However I know you would never be satisfied with that, so how about we go into the mechanics of it that uses present information?
So am I to believe that you are the one who performed the experiment that established that positive and negative fields can combine to produce solidity in atoms? What equipment did you use? Have the results been peer reviewed?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 22:08:30
Ok you want an experiment, will a thought experiment do using present information ? The equipment we will use is bitmap and you can peer-view this and give an objective judgement?What do you mean? I am in a new theories section, the year is 2017 so that is when it was done and I am writing it as we speak.
However I know you would never be satisfied with that, so how about we go into the mechanics of it that uses present information?
So am I to believe that you are the one who performed the experiment that established that positive and negative fields can combine to produce solidity in atoms? What equipment did you use? Have the results been peer reviewed?
Post by: The Spoon on 04/10/2017 22:10:54
Dont be ridiculous. You think a thought experiment provides physical evidence? You are more deluded than I thought.Ok you want an experiment, will a thought experiment do using present information ? The equipment we will use is bitmap and you can peer-view this and give an objective judgement?What do you mean? I am in a new theories section, the year is 2017 so that is when it was done and I am writing it as we speak.
However I know you would never be satisfied with that, so how about we go into the mechanics of it that uses present information?
So am I to believe that you are the one who performed the experiment that established that positive and negative fields can combine to produce solidity in atoms? What equipment did you use? Have the results been peer reviewed?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 22:13:45
Ok you want an experiment, will a thought experiment do using present information ? The equipment we will use is bitmap and you can peer-view this and give an objective judgement?
No. I said, and I quote, "Show us a single confirmed, observed example of positive and negative fields merging to produce solidity" to which you answered with "Atoms". You are therefore saying that it has been confirmed that atoms are an example of positive and negative fields merging to produce solidity. The only way this could have been confirmed is if an actual, physical experiment had already been done to confirm it. Therefore, you are saying that such an experiment has already been carried out. So tell me, what was the actual, physical experiment?
Or did you lie?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 22:14:52
For now a thought experiment will help you understand, we may be able to do a physical experiment and that is why if you are a real scientist you might be able to help. I have done an experiment before where I bent fire around a magnetic field. A piece of cigarette paper in the center of the field did not even scorch.Dont be ridiculous. You think a thought experiment provides physical evidence? You are more deluded than I thought.Ok you want an experiment, will a thought experiment do using present information ? The equipment we will use is bitmap and you can peer-view this and give an objective judgement?What do you mean? I am in a new theories section, the year is 2017 so that is when it was done and I am writing it as we speak.
However I know you would never be satisfied with that, so how about we go into the mechanics of it that uses present information?
So am I to believe that you are the one who performed the experiment that established that positive and negative fields can combine to produce solidity in atoms? What equipment did you use? Have the results been peer reviewed?
But for now maybe the thought experiment to see if we can agree on some basics in the form of a question, i.e how can?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 22:17:18
I think you are reading ambiguous to what I said. If you want to confirm solidity of atoms just drop some more atoms on the floor. This will confirm solidity sure enough. You need to understand the mechanics then maybe you would not be so sceptical.Ok you want an experiment, will a thought experiment do using present information ? The equipment we will use is bitmap and you can peer-view this and give an objective judgement?
No. I said, and I quote, "Show us a single confirmed, observed example of positive and negative fields merging to produce solidity" to which you answered with "Atoms". You are therefore saying that it has been confirmed that atoms are an example of positive and negative fields merging to produce solidity. The only way this could have been confirmed is if an actual, physical experiment had already been done to confirm it. Therefore, you are saying that such an experiment has already been carried out. So tell me, what was the actual, physical experiment?
Or did you lie?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 22:19:20
I think you are reading ambiguous to what I said. If you want to confirm solidity of atoms just drop some more atoms on the floor. This will confirm solidity sure enough. You need to understand the mechanics then maybe you would not be so sceptical.
I didn't ask what experiment confirmed that atomic matter was solid. I asked specifically what experiment confirmed that this solidity was due to the merger of positive and negative fields. Go back and read my post again.
Post by: The Spoon on 04/10/2017 22:20:54
Ah, so you are describing something that you have imagined. Not an actual experiment, not actual evidence. Just something you thought up. How does something you have just made up in your head help us to understand anything other than the fact that you are deluded?For now a thought experiment will help you understand, we may be able to do a physical experiment and that is why if you are a real scientist you might be able to help. I have done an experiment before where I bent fire around a magnetic field. A piece of cigarette paper in the center of the field did not even scorch.Dont be ridiculous. You think a thought experiment provides physical evidence? You are more deluded than I thought.Ok you want an experiment, will a thought experiment do using present information ? The equipment we will use is bitmap and you can peer-view this and give an objective judgement?What do you mean? I am in a new theories section, the year is 2017 so that is when it was done and I am writing it as we speak.
However I know you would never be satisfied with that, so how about we go into the mechanics of it that uses present information?
So am I to believe that you are the one who performed the experiment that established that positive and negative fields can combine to produce solidity in atoms? What equipment did you use? Have the results been peer reviewed?
But for now maybe the thought experiment to see if we can agree on some basics in the form of a question, i.e how can?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 22:25:15
The mechanics prove it , the part you need to listen to if you want to try and understand. I am sure we could come up with an experiment it should not be that difficult with some equipment. The mechanics work so therefore maths and experiemnt can be added at a later date, just like most other science from our past. I.e the Keating experiment and time dilation, Einstein had the idea, Keating proved the idea.I think you are reading ambiguous to what I said. If you want to confirm solidity of atoms just drop some more atoms on the floor. This will confirm solidity sure enough. You need to understand the mechanics then maybe you would not be so sceptical.
I didn't ask what experiment confirmed that atomic matter was solid. I asked specifically what experiment confirmed that this solidity was due to the merger of positive and negative fields. Go back and read my post again.
Why don't you just trying play along for once, don't argue the idea and try to help the idea?
Will you listen to the mechanics where I will do a series of questions where we will deal with one at a time?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 22:27:37
The mechanics prove it
What existing mechanics prove that negative and positive fields can merge to produce solidity? Tell me using known, existing science and only known, existing science.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 22:36:59
I will start with this first question. I would like to ''see'' if there is any errors in my thinking and logic.
In the diagram I have drew a single negative polarity , a point source or a 0 point energy if you like. Now according to present information likewise polarities repel each other. In essence the 0 point energy of a single polarity can not retain its 0 point energy state, it would expand by its own mechanism, in essence there would have to be a void in the center.
Question - how can the 0 point single pole retain its dimensions when it repulses itself?
diagram1.jpg (41.93 kB . 898x572 - viewed 3385 times)My answer would be it can not , it would need a retainer to stop it expanding.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 22:38:21
The earths magnetic field. It opposes the sunlight and has solidity. (Newtons third law. ) it pushes back applying opposing force.The mechanics prove it
What existing mechanics prove that negative and positive fields can merge to produce solidity? Tell me using known, existing science and only known, existing science.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 22:49:46
I would like to ''see'' if there is any errors in my thinking and logic.
One of your errors is in thinking that a thought experiment can prove anything. At the very most, it can set up a precedent for believing something is true. Only after sufficiently thorough experimental investigation can something be scientifically accepted as being true.
Your other error is in rejecting past experiments that have thoroughly established the structure of the atom to a high degree of confidence. Not a single bit of it requires anything like an "N-field". The fact that you reject experimental results that contradict your pet theories is only going to hold you back, not push you forward.
Quote
The earths magnetic field. It opposes the sunlight and has solidity. (Newtons third law. ) it pushes back applying opposing force.
Heck no. Light travels unhindered through a magnetic field. Put a refrigerator magnet next to a light bulb and tell me what you see. You certainly won't see the light being pushed back.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 22:52:12
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 22:58:34
At the very most, it can set up a precedent for believing something is true. Only after sufficiently thorough experimental investigation can something be scientifically accepted as being true.I don't disagree with that. I am presenting premise , a thought experiment that has premise for further investigation. At this time I am not saying this is any sort of axiom fact. I am trying to develop the notion further. If you helped it might get there a bit quicker.
Heck no. Light travels unhindered through a magnetic field.Only if light works like you believe it to work. I do not consider the earths magnetic field to be just as magnetic field. The N-field is the unification of the charge field, the polarity field, the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field. You are not considering this and how it opposes the solar winds and how it decrease the amount of UV we get.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 23:07:02
I don't disagree with that. I am presenting premise , a thought experiment that has premise for further investigation. At this time I am not saying this is any sort of axiom fact. I am trying to develop the notion further. If you helped it might get there a bit quicker.
Now you are contradicting yourself. Remember when you said this?
The mechanics prove it
You were very much presenting this as a fact. You can't simultaneously say, "I can prove this is true" and "I'm not sure this is true".
Quote
Only if light works like you believe it to work. I do not consider the earths magnetic field to be just as magnetic field. The N-field is the unification of the charge field, the polarity field, the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field. You are not considering this and how it opposes the solar winds and how it decrease the amount of UV we get.
You are stepping outside of established physics again. Therefore, your statement cannot possibly represent a case of a confirmed example of positive and negative fields merging to produce solidity. We know very well by now that there are no confirmed examples of solidity being formed by the mechanism you propose.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 23:12:26
You were very much presenting this as a fact. You can't simultaneously say, "I can prove this is true" and "I'm not sure this is true".Well the mechanics prove it to be true, but I am not the one in the world who can say it is true. That would be for science and peers to decide.
You are stepping outside of established physics again.Ok let us step back inside physics and present single polarity field solidity, i.e likewise magnet polarities.
Quite clearly we can move one magnet with another magnet and the magnets never touch , providing adequate justification that the likewise field of each magnet is relatively solid to each other. The field creates a ''pole'' between magnets. I can push this magnet about using this invisible ''pole''.
Skip to 30.s in.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 23:16:27
Well the mechanics prove it to be true, but I am not the one in the world who can say it is true. That would be for science and peers to decide.
Science has already decided that it is not true. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt how atoms are structured. That alone is grounds enough to dismiss your model.
Quote
Ok let us step back inside physics and present single polarity field solidity, i.e likewise magnet polarities.
Quite clearly we can move one magnet with another magnet and the magnets never touch , providing adequate justification that the likewise field of each magnet is relatively solid to each other. The field creates a ''pole'' between magnets. I can push this magnet about using this invisible ''pole''.
Magnetic poles are not a merger of positive and negative fields to produce solidity.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 23:22:49
Science has already decided that it is not true. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt how atoms are structured. That alone is grounds enough to dismiss your model.And what have you decided is true about the fields surrounding the atoms that expand outwards?
Magnetic poles are not a merger of positive and negative fields to produce solidity.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.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 23:26:58
merge1.jpg (26.15 kB . 898x572 - viewed 5084 times)I see no reason why the mechanics would not work the same.
r=F1+F2
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 23:28:30
And what have you decided is true about the fields surrounding the atoms that expand outwards?
The fields around atoms don't expand outwards, so it's irrelevant to atomic structure.
Quote
Of course they are not merged polarities , but it certainly shows q.f.s quantum field solidity
So a field that is not a merger of positive and negative fields somehow proves that there is a merger of positive and negative fields that produces solidity. Right...
Quote
There is also no reason that two merged opposite polarities would not retain the solidity against other fields.
Neutral things observably don't repel each other. That alone is reason enough to know better.
Quote
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 23:37:15
There is no such thing as a "positive" or "negative" magnetic field.
You know there is opposite polarities, I think you are just being awkward with that one. Pos and neg just represent opposites.
Neutral things observably don't repel each other. That alone is reason enough to know betterOnly because they can not overcome the reference frame inertia . Neutral things retain there independent repulsive and attractive properties .
The fields around atoms don't expand outwards, so it's irrelevant to atomic structure.Hmmm, yes they do. You just didn't want to discuss it and ignored my question and diagram.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/10/2017 23:38:32
see this , you might have been typing when i posted it.
I see no reason why the mechanics would not work the same.
r=F1+F2
The maths would actually be
r=F1+(F1+F2)
Post by: Kryptid on 04/10/2017 23:49:23
You know there is opposite polarities, I think you are just being awkward with that one. Pos and neg just represent opposites.
You don't know that magnetic poles are called north and south?
Quote
Only because they can not overcome the reference frame inertia
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.
Quote
Neutral things retain there independent repulsive and attractive properties
According to what experiment?
Quote
Hmmm, yes they do. You just didn't want to discuss it and ignored my question and diagram.
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.
Quote
see this , you might have been typing when i posted it.
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/10/2017 00:01:16
You don't know that magnetic poles are called north and south?Yes but I am discussing polarity in general, e.g charge has a north and south also, atoms have a north and south,
Yes we call them different things, but the polarities remain opposites.
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.In what respect ? planets? Which are already at the equilibrium radius so will do no more than travel around in a circular type pattern?
According to what experiment?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.
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.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.
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.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.
added- I cleverly arranged the right magnets to create no net force unless force is applied to the right magnet directed to the left.
The left magnets force direction →
The right magnets forces directions
←
→
Post by: Kryptid on 05/10/2017 00:12:55
In what respect ? planets? Which are already at the equilibrium radius so will do no more than travel around in a circular type pattern?
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.
Quote
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.
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.
Quote
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.
The Big Bang has nothing to do with atomic structure. Fields in atoms do not expand. There is no experiment suggesting such a thing.
Quote
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.
The magnet on the right has 3 red poles and only two black poles. Such a magnet cannot exist.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/10/2017 00:18:07
Post by: guest39538 on 05/10/2017 00:22:21
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.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.
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.Its not just about magnetism, it is the N-field I described.
The magnet on the right has 3 red poles and only two black poles. Such a magnet cannot exist.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.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/10/2017 00:27:07
Post by: Kryptid on 05/10/2017 00:39:59
Quote
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.
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.
Quote
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.
Even if you had drawn your magnet properly, there would be no net attraction or repulsion between the stacked magnet and the normal magnet. The amount of attraction induced by the red poles will be perfectly balanced by the repulsion from the black poles.
Quote
Its not just about magnetism, it is the N-field I described.
Which you have yet to provide any compelling evidence for.
Another thing you need to realize is that composite entities do not necessarily retain the properties of their components. Water contains hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen is a lighter-than-air gas that is flammable. Oxygen is a gas that is an oxidizing agent. Although water contains both of these substances, it is not a gas under standard conditions, it is not flammable and it is not an oxidizing agent. If you take two identical airplanes that are both capable of flying and tie them tail-end to tail-end, the resulting machine will not be able to fly when you turn the engines on. Mix silly putty with an acid that dissolves it and the end product will not retain the bounciness of the original putty. You cannot simply assume that something will retain the properties of its components simply because it has those components in itself. A neutral object containing attractive and repulsive components does not automatically mean that it can attract or repel other things.
P.s Did you watch the video? He didn't understand the physics/mechanics but I understand the mechanics .
The reason that the other magnet stayed in place was due to the arrangement of the ring magnets. The fields of smaller magnets overlap in the space between them, so the only time when the outside magnet experiences a repulsion that overcomes the central magnets attraction is when it gets close to that space where the smaller magnets' field reinforce each other.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/10/2017 00:50:04
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?
ball game.jpg (24.59 kB . 898x572 - viewed 2805 times)p.s you can hit the ball as hard as you like creating what ever speed you like, I will keep the force of the reeling at a very slow speed and little force.
Post by: Kryptid on 05/10/2017 00:57:45
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?
That's not an accurate model for the way that gravity works. You already have a constant centripetal force component with the string that is attached to the ball. The centrifugal force provided by the ball's momentum trying to pull it outward is balanced by the centripetal force of the string trying to pull it inward. The pull of gravity is represented sufficiently well by that alone. Look at this centrifugal force calculator: http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal (http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/newtonian/centrifugal)
Go ahead and put in any values you'd like and see what the resulting centrifugal force is. When you know the centrifugal force you also know the centripetal force (since they are equal and point in opposite directions). While keeping the same linear speed and mass, reduce the radius slightly and see what happens to the centrifugal (and therefore centripetal) force value. You will notice that it increases. This is what is happening when you "reel in" the ball: centripetal force increases as the length of the string decreases. Therefore, what you are modeling by reeling in the ball is an increase in gravity over time, not a constant force of gravity over time. Since planets don't spontaneously increase in gravitational strength over time, your analogy is inaccurate. Like I said, we know how orbits work.
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/10/2017 12:06:39
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.Not one stable orbit? Great that fits right in with my notion. Consider gravity to be dynamic is like considering the N-field to be dynamic, which I do. (p.s you understand my notion ).
The moon is moving away because N is dynamic and increase or decrease in magnitude but still measures N.