Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 17:04:19

Title: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 17:04:19
Surely I deserve some credit for this one?

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 17:49:54
Surely I deserve some credit for this one?
This forum doesn't have a "performance art" section.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 18:04:39
Surely I deserve some credit for this one?
This forum doesn't have a "performance art" section.
Well objectively I say that is a piece of science better than yourself could ever do.  I know it is good field theory because the mechanics work.
It is a shame you do not have the intellect to know good science when you see it.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 18:17:46
Surely I deserve some credit for this one?
This forum doesn't have a "performance art" section.
Well objectively I say that is a piece of science better than yourself could ever do.  I know it is good field theory because the mechanics work.
It is a shame you do not have the intellect to know good science when you see it.
OH!, it's meant to be science is it?
I must have missed the testable predictions.
Could you list them please?

Incidentally, since you haven't seen any of the science I have done, you are not in a position to judge it objectively so this "Well objectively I say that is a piece of science better than yourself could ever do. " isn't true.
Which, in turn, speaks volumes about how well you can do science.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 18:34:25
Surely I deserve some credit for this one?
This forum doesn't have a "performance art" section.
Well objectively I say that is a piece of science better than yourself could ever do.  I know it is good field theory because the mechanics work.
It is a shame you do not have the intellect to know good science when you see it.
OH!, it's meant to be science is it?
I must have missed the testable predictions.
Could you list them please?

Incidentally, since you haven't seen any of the science I have done, you are not in a position to judge it objectively so this "Well objectively I say that is a piece of science better than yourself could ever do. " isn't true.
Which, in turn, speaks volumes about how well you can do science.
Well what is interesting is that I have never in all this time observed you offering any of your own science.  I have observed you presenting information you have remembered from education that you was told to remember or you would fail.  However I observe no individual creativity or thinking from yourself what so ever. 
I don't care about predictions which are not really ''predictions'' they are measurements.  These measurements the existing ''predictions'' that go along with my explanation of it all.
Your predictions are the same predictions as my video.
p.s If you are a good scientist then why can't you use your ''loaf'' and help fill in the missing peaces to the puzzle of gravity mechanism?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 20:43:52
I don't care about predictions
Then you are not interested in science.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 25/09/2017 20:53:02
I've seen you talk about this before. We already know what gives matter its solidity. It's mainly due to the electric repulsion between the electrons in the valence orbitals of neighboring atoms, which keeps them from getting too close to each other. The Pauli exclusion principle probably has a role too, in that it keeps more than two electrons from occupying the same orbital. No need to propose N-fields to explain something that can already be explained with known physics.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 20:58:35
I've seen you talk about this before. We already know what gives matter its solidity. It's mainly due to the electric repulsion between the electrons in the valence orbitals of neighboring atoms, which keeps them from getting too close to each other. The Pauli exclusion principle probably has a role too, in that it keeps more than two electrons from occupying the same orbital. No need to propose N-fields to explain something that can already be explained with known physics.
I think you are missing the bigger picture and a united field theory.  This notion of mine is correct and is not trying to explain any existing theory.  It is a brand new theory , new being the key word.
added-
 It's mainly due to the electric repulsion between the electrons in the valence orbitals of neighbouring atoms, and the repulsion between protons v protons of the nucleus .
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 25/09/2017 21:04:38
I think you are missing the bigger picture and a united field theory.

The "bigger picture" being what?

Quote
This notion of mine is correct

You don't have any experimental evidence to back it up, so how can you say that? All you have is speculation and assertions. Those are not evidence.

Quote
and is not trying to explain any existing theory.  It is a brand new theory , new being the key word.

Which is completely unnecessary. A well-explained phenomenon does not need any new explanation.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 21:07:18
added-
 It's mainly due to the electric repulsion between the electrons in the valence orbitals of neighbouring atoms, and the repulsion between protons v protons of the nucleus
LOOK what I say in the video.

added-
 It's mainly due to the electric repulsion between the electrons in the valence orbitals of neighbouring atoms, and the repulsion between protons v protons of the nucleus. 

Quote
Which is completely unnecessary. A well-explained phenomenon does not need any new explanation.

I beg to differ, I explain it better .

A+B=N 

N is a neutron or what you call an atom, a ''particle'' itself does not need to exist, only the energy has to exist to form an atom.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 25/09/2017 21:11:46
LOOK what I say in the video.

I watched your video. You only gave assertions, not evidence.

Quote
I beg to differ, I explain it better

According to what evidence?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 21:14:58
LOOK what I say in the video.

I watched your video. You only gave assertions, not evidence.

Quote
I beg to differ, I explain it better

According to what evidence?
The present evidence for one. 

Opposite fields attract

Likewise fields repulse

Basic physics.   

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 25/09/2017 21:20:18
The present evidence for one. 

Opposite fields attract

Likewise fields repulse

Basic physics.   

So how is that any different from the existing theory that electron shells in atoms repel each other because they are of the same charge? No need to call it something new.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 21:25:39
The present evidence for one. 

Opposite fields attract

Likewise fields repulse

Basic physics.   

So how is that any different from the existing theory that electron shells in atoms repel each other because they are of the same charge? No need to call it something new.
You would be missing something there, like protons repulse protons and also that does not explain how the two opposite fields merge and the mechanics of the merge and after the merge.  i.e G=N-field.

Science see's an object that is neutral as neutral.  The N-field view shows that that the merge retains individual properties still of the electron field and proton field. So therefore concluding the N-field to also be the cause and mechanics of gravity.  The mechanism we did not know.


Also every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the opposite action to the inverse square law and weakened field strength, is a transverse law where at the epicentre is the most magnitude of force.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 25/09/2017 21:36:56
You would be missing something there, like protons repulse protons

Yes, two protons do repel each other. That explains why atoms don't completely merge with each other when a chemical bond is formed. Electron orbitals merge during the formation of molecular orbitals, but the repulsion between the positively charged nuclei inside of the atoms still keeps the atoms separate from each other.

Quote
and also that does not explain how the two opposite fields merge and the mechanics of the merge and after the merge.  i.e G=N-field.

Merge? Protons and electrons retain their separate identities when they are in atoms.

Quote
Science see's an object that is neutral as neutral.  The N-field view shows that that the merge retains individual properties still of the electron field and proton field. So therefore concluding the N-field to also be the cause and mechanics of gravity.  The mechanism we did not know.

I can see that further dialogue with you is completely pointless. You deny existing scientific knowledge because you can't verify it for yourself firsthand and yet you propose explanations which are of the exact same nature (i.e. something you cannot verify for yourself firsthand). Not only is that a double standard, but it's also one that assumes physicists are bumbling buffoons who don't know how to properly use mathematics and equipment to verify their experimental observations. It's practically insulting to the scientific community at large.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 21:48:28
You would be missing something there, like protons repulse protons

Yes, two protons do repel each other. That explains why atoms don't completely merge with each other when a chemical bond is formed. Electron orbitals merge during the formation of molecular orbitals, but the repulsion between the positively charged nuclei inside of the atoms still keeps the atoms separate from each other.
I don't think electron orbitals merge, I think they are squashed against each other.

Quote
and also that does not explain how the two opposite fields merge and the mechanics of the merge and after the merge.  i.e G=N-field.

Quote
Merge? Protons and electrons retain their separate identities when they are in atoms.

Yes merge, like water and milk. The two opposite fields merge into one field i.e the N-field

Quote
Science see's an object that is neutral as neutral.  The N-field view shows that that the merge retains individual properties still of the electron field and proton field. So therefore concluding the N-field to also be the cause and mechanics of gravity.  The mechanism we did not know.

Quote
I can see that further dialogue with you is completely pointless. You deny existing scientific knowledge because you can't verify it for yourself firsthand and yet you propose explanations which are of the exact same nature (i.e. something you cannot verify for yourself firsthand). Not only is that a double standard, but it's also one that assumes physicists are bumbling buffoons who don't know how to properly use mathematics and equipment to verify their experimental observations. It's practically insulting to the scientific community at large.

I have no idea how you have interpreted that from what I have said.  I would never insult the scientific community in such of a manner. I would never say or assume bumbling bafoon's.
Try to think of it as an alternative theory to an old theory. I can't see how it '''hurts'' to discuss something's sometimes that are not mainstream. A new theory would be a very poor new theory if it only involved present information. My NEW theory involves present information such as the laws of force etc, but it doesn't destroy any old theories, it is just new.

To me what I presented in the video and my knowledge of what I have learnt about force etc the video is quite logically accurate and the physics involved would be correct according to present information?


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 22:28:35
It's mainly due to the electric repulsion between the electrons in the valence orbitals of neighbouring atoms, and the repulsion between protons v protons of the nucleus .
What do you think the current theories are based on?

here's a hint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR_theory
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/09/2017 22:56:08
It's mainly due to the electric repulsion between the electrons in the valence orbitals of neighbouring atoms, and the repulsion between protons v protons of the nucleus .
What do you think the current theories are based on?

here's a hint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSEPR_theory

I had not seen that link before , thanks for sharing.  My theory is somewhat different to that though because my theory explains gravity.   An electron is not attracted to a proton , the electron field is attracted to and merges with the proton field to create the N-field , a unified field that is a good contender for  the mechanism of gravity.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/09/2017 17:57:09
My theory is somewhat different to that though because my theory explains gravity.   An electron is not attracted to a proton
No it isn't and yes it is.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/09/2017 18:21:12
My theory is somewhat different to that though because my theory explains gravity.   An electron is not attracted to a proton
No it isn't and yes it is.
I like how you cut half the sentence to try and make me look bad in someway.  For the readers Mr Chemist here uses half of sentences by cutting them to try to confuse the readers.  We can see quite easily in this example when I complete the sentence (An electron is not attracted to a proton , the electron field is attracted to and merges with the proton field to create the N-field )  that is in a few posts above and we can see here that our Mr Chemist here is doing nothing more than trying to ''troll'' me. 

I will not waste anymore of my time talking to this individual.  I would rather talk to nobody than talk to people who's only intent is to be disruptive.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/09/2017 19:55:30
My theory is somewhat different to that though because my theory explains gravity.
No it isn't.
An electron is not attracted to a proton...
Yes it is.

the electron field is attracted to and merges with the proton field to create the N-field ,
No, it doesn't
a unified field that is a good contender for  the mechanism of gravity.
No, it isn't.

It is not my fault that you cram 3 errors into one sentence  so I have to chop it up to point out the errors.
I would rather talk to nobody than talk to people who's only intent is to be disruptive.
Posting drivel on a science website is disruptive, so you ruled out talking to yourself there.

Not many other people will read through this thread.
So, with luck, it will now die out.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 14:23:37

An electron is not attracted to a proton...
Yes it is.



I really suggest you go learn some Physics before you say things aren't making yourself look stupid. Mass is attracted to the C.O.M
At C.O.M the N-field is at its most dense in accordance to the transverse square law.
The N-field expands outwards , the N-field is an isolated system field.   This field has attractive and repulsive properties.
Basic physics my friend.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 14:29:28
This is the bit you are missing to complete quantum mechanics.. This is my last effort to explain gravity, my last science forum and quite simply I have had enough.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 27/09/2017 16:20:40
This is the bit you are missing to complete quantum mechanics.. This is my last effort to explain gravity, my last science forum and quite simply I have had enough.


* f2.jpg (35.74 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3682 times)
Of course it is, until your craving for attention gets too much and you post some more mumblings.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 16:26:11
This is the bit you are missing to complete quantum mechanics.. This is my last effort to explain gravity, my last science forum and quite simply I have had enough.


* f2.jpg (35.74 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3682 times)
Of course it is, until your craving for attention gets too much and you post some more mumblings.
Your answer is doing any sort of science is it? 

No answer is often the validation of the truth.

Are you trying to say that my logic and use of simple physics is in some way flawed?

Then please show my error I am all ear's.

added- The above applies to anybody in the world or Universe, show my logic and simple physics to be flawed if you can.


Added- You can call it space-time curvature if you like, I am just giving you what you can not see.

→F
.....=N-field
←F

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 27/09/2017 17:06:21
This is the bit you are missing to complete quantum mechanics.. This is my last effort to explain gravity, my last science forum and quite simply I have had enough.


* f2.jpg (35.74 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3682 times)
Of course it is, until your craving for attention gets too much and you post some more mumblings.
Your answer is doing any sort of science is it? 

No answer is often the validation of the truth.

Are you trying to say that my logic and use of simple physics is in some way flawed?

Then please show my error I am all ear's.
Your error is making assertions without any kind of evidence other than 'this is the case because it is what I think'. If people point out you are wrong you claim that they are trolls or claim that your made up ideas are an 'axiom'. I do science all day as my job. What do you do? make videos about carp fishing with a synthesised voice?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 17:10:42
This is the bit you are missing to complete quantum mechanics.. This is my last effort to explain gravity, my last science forum and quite simply I have had enough.


* f2.jpg (35.74 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3682 times)
Of course it is, until your craving for attention gets too much and you post some more mumblings.
Your answer is doing any sort of science is it? 

No answer is often the validation of the truth.

Are you trying to say that my logic and use of simple physics is in some way flawed?

Then please show my error I am all ear's.
Your error is making assertions without any kind of evidence other than 'this is the case because it is what I think'. If people point out you are wrong you claim that they are trolls or claim that your made up ideas are an 'axiom'. I do science all day as my job. What do you do? make videos about carp fishing with a synthesised voice?
But saying I am wrong does not explain why I am wrong. You can go on all day long saying it is wrong but not actually explaining why it is wrong.  Like I said I am all ears.

You say I am using no evidence when I am using evidence of the simple physics involved that we already know.  To deny Q.F.S is like saying that opposites do not attract and likewise repulses.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Colin2B on 27/09/2017 17:12:38
No answer is often the validation of the truth.
But most often it is folks not being bothered to challenge something which is obviously flawed.

I haven't been following this thread so the comment is not about it in particular.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 17:26:44
No answer is often the validation of the truth.
But most often it is folks not being bothered to challenge something which is obviously flawed.

I haven't been following this thread so the comment is not about it in particular.
Then may I suggest you read the thread Colin and please correct me in my logic if in some way it is flawed.  I am using specifically basic science here with no gimmicks.

I can't personally ''see'' where my logic is flawed when using conventional science for the very notion. If it was so obvious then why is it so difficult to show the error?

I am also trying to think of errors there could be but I certainly can't ''see'' any.  It is seemingly the end point of answers that explains gravity also.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 19:20:37

An electron is not attracted to a proton...
Yes it is.



I really suggest you go learn some Physics before you say things aren't making yourself look stupid. Mass is attracted to the C.O.M
At C.O.M the N-field is at its most dense in accordance to the transverse square law.
The N-field expands outwards , the N-field is an isolated system field.   This field has attractive and repulsive properties.
Basic physics my friend.

Slightly more advanced physics.
The electromagnetic force is about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times bigger than the gravitational force and, in both cases they are attractive forces between the proton and electron.
So, yes they are attracted to one another.

The rest of what you posted is gibberish.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 19:28:38

An electron is not attracted to a proton...
Yes it is.



I really suggest you go learn some Physics before you say things aren't making yourself look stupid. Mass is attracted to the C.O.M
At C.O.M the N-field is at its most dense in accordance to the transverse square law.
The N-field expands outwards , the N-field is an isolated system field.   This field has attractive and repulsive properties.
Basic physics my friend.

Slightly more advanced physics.
The electromagnetic force is about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times bigger than the gravitational force and, in both cases they are attractive forces between the proton and electron.
So, yes they are attracted to one another.

The rest of what you posted is gibberish.
I should hope so or my N-field would not work.  You are not accounting that the N-field is a weaker force than the electromagnetic/electrostatic force between electrons and protons.  You are forgetting that the N-field is a neutralised field with a weak force interaction. i.e gravity.

added- However although it has a weak force , relative to other N-fields it has 100% solidity.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 19:39:54
The rest of what you posted is gibberish.
I should hope so

You are just making stuff up.It's not science, it's not helpful; it's not even very creative.
Why do you do it?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 19:46:41
The rest of what you posted is gibberish.
I should hope so

You are just making stuff up.It's not science, it's not helpful; it's not even very creative.
Why do you do it?
Stop trying to troll me you are not  stupid and can understand the very simple explanations and simple physics involved.

Let us try a new approach although I think you are intentionally being obtuse.

Do you agree that if we have two likewise polarities they will exert a repulsive force on each other?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law

It says it does, are you in disagreement ?

added- Because in Q.F.S a variation of Newtons 3rd law.    When one N-field exerts a force on a second N-field, the second N-field simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first N-field.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 20:13:16
When one N-field exerts a force on a second N-field, the second N-field simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first N-field.
You made that bit up, and it's gibberish.
Show me any published work that supports the existence of these "N fields".
Or show me that they somehow explain the world as well as the conventional  view.
Please note that, to do that  you will have to start by showing that the normal view is actually wrong, then show how your way is better.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 20:21:57
When one N-field exerts a force on a second N-field, the second N-field simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first N-field.
You made that bit up, and it's gibberish.
Show me any published work that supports the existence of these "N fields".


I made that bit up? It is almost word for word from Wiki apart from my edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

How can I show you the future? Meaning published works I have not done yet.

The notion adds to the conventional view .   M1 is the C.O.M of the N-field.

Treat the Earths magnetic field as being a body, so the earth being a body within a body ok? 

Easy as that...

p.s Push two of the same polarities together with magnets, feel the force of the body between the magnets.




Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/09/2017 20:33:12

* qfs1.jpg (22.84 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3472 times)

Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 23:15:19
I made that bit up? It is almost word for word from Wiki apart from my edit.
The edit was the gibberish bit.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 23:16:39

Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.

Everybody else thinks it proves Maxwell's equations.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 14:38:12

Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.

Everybody else thinks it proves Maxwell's equations.

You think an equation can have purpose on its own?  No the process is first , the maths explains the process , the maths does not explain Q.F.S
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2017 19:28:16

Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.

Everybody else thinks it proves Maxwell's equations.

You think an equation can have purpose on its own?  No the process is first , the maths explains the process , the maths does not explain Q.F.S
QFS is something you made up. You are the one who needs to explain it. So far you don't even seem to understand what  that means.
In the meantime, Maxwell's equations  (and the physics that goes with them) explain the force between two magnets.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 28/09/2017 20:29:58

Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.

Everybody else thinks it proves Maxwell's equations.

You think an equation can have purpose on its own?  No the process is first , the maths explains the process , the maths does not explain Q.F.S
QFS is something you made up. You are the one who needs to explain it. So far you don't even seem to understand what  that means.
In the meantime, Maxwell's equations  (and the physics that goes with them) explain the force between two magnets.
Q.F.S does not try to explain the force between two magnets.  Q.F.S explains Newtons 3 rd law and the relative solidity between to likewise Quantum fields.
I understand my own notion .
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2017 19:21:35
I understand my own notion .
Nobody else does.
Whose fault is that?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 29/09/2017 22:26:41
I understand my own notion .
Nobody else does.
Whose fault is that?

. A child could understand this so I think you understand.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 29/09/2017 22:33:42
I understand my own notion .
Nobody else does.
Whose fault is that?

I'll throw in a second vote of this stuff not making sense (especially in light of known science).
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 29/09/2017 22:45:08
I understand my own notion .
Nobody else does.
Whose fault is that?

I'll throw in a second vote of this stuff not making sense (especially in light of known science).
PFFF your a tough ''crowd''.

Ok in your terms.    The electromagnetic field of the earth imposes a force on the Suns electromagnetic field and vice versus because of the likewise polarities of the individual fields and in accordance  with Newton's third law, an equal and opposing force, giving both fields relative Physicality.

ok?

Both electromagnetic fields also are attracted to each other by their individual opposite polarities.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 00:01:36
ok?
No, even with proper punctuation etc, it's cargo cult science at best.
In particular this "giving both fields relative Physicality.
"  is a total non sequitur.
It does not follow from what you have said.
You just stuffed it in and hoped that people would accept it.

Would you like to try again with more stuff of the form " because a, therefore b".

BTW, we are not  a tough crowd.
Reality is much tougher.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 11:57:07
ok?
No, even with proper punctuation etc, it's cargo cult science at best.
In particular this "giving both fields relative Physicality.
"  is a total non sequitur.
It does not follow from what you have said.
You just stuffed it in and hoped that people would accept it.

Would you like to try again with more stuff of the form " because a, therefore b".

BTW, we are not  a tough crowd.
Reality is much tougher.

My sentence is not stuffed , it is easy to understand.  I am not writing a paper here or facing an audience, I present it in basics for discussion . 
It is hardly as if I am took serious is it now?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 30/09/2017 12:29:38
ok?
No, even with proper punctuation etc, it's cargo cult science at best.
In particular this "giving both fields relative Physicality.
"  is a total non sequitur.
It does not follow from what you have said.
You just stuffed it in and hoped that people would accept it.

Would you like to try again with more stuff of the form " because a, therefore b".

BTW, we are not  a tough crowd.
Reality is much tougher.

I can't believe I keep biting.

The N-field has mass.

In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions. The electromagnetic field opposes other electromagnetic fields applying an opposing and attractive force at the same time.
In magnetic suspension it is not the object that is being suspended , it is the invisible quantum field that surrounds the objects.

added - Essentially my N-field is Einsteins fabric of the spacial continuum.

added- And there is a maybe  in my mind that there is an underlying quantum field that has dielectric properties that allows the N-field to permeate through. i.e an ''ether''

added- or rather than an ''ether'' the dielectric properties of space itself.

added- The more I think about it, there has to be dielectric properties of space itself having μ=0
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/09/2017 13:33:24
In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions.
Not really.
And there is ... an ''ether''
No there isn't.
We checked.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 14:55:32
In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions.
Not really.
And there is ... an ''ether''
No there isn't.
We checked.
Well like normal MR Chemist your ability to not be able to think certainly shows in most of your replies.  You can't find or detect an ''ether'' that is dielectric and has μ0.  I know you can't understand that the dielectric properties of space are of space and not of a spacial field such as the Higg's field.
The properties of nothing being dielectric is a rather confusing thought I must agree.   But to suggest a dielectric field occupying space would suppose intelligent design.
Are you really suggesting that two likewise fields do not oppose force on each other?  The fields have mass like it or not because I didn't write these rules of forces etc.

Quote
In physics, a state of matter is one of the distinct forms in which matter can exist. Four states of matter are observable in everyday life: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. ..

Quantum fields are a state of matter , they are relatively solids to each other.

* qfm.jpg (34.48 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3798 times)

added- When I turn on the light switch I am emitting an electromagnetic field that permeates isotropic at c through the Box's dielectric field (a property of space).  Now any object that is within radius (r) of a certain magnitude has cause and affect on each others fields.

.....cause that's what the mechanics say

added- cause if the space had any polarity , fields would not be able to permeate.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 02/10/2017 18:38:08
In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions.
Not really.
And there is ... an ''ether''
No there isn't.
We checked.
Well like normal MR Chemist your ability to not be able to think certainly shows in most of your replies.  You can't find or detect an ''ether'' that is dielectric and has μ0.  I know you can't understand that the dielectric properties of space are of space and not of a spacial field such as the Higg's field.
The properties of nothing being dielectric is a rather confusing thought I must agree.   But to suggest a dielectric field occupying space would suppose intelligent design.
Are you really suggesting that two likewise fields do not oppose force on each other?  The fields have mass like it or not because I didn't write these rules of forces etc.

Quote
In physics, a state of matter is one of the distinct forms in which matter can exist. Four states of matter are observable in everyday life: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. ..

Quantum fields are a state of matter , they are relatively solids to each other.

* qfm.jpg (34.48 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3798 times)

added- When I turn on the light switch I am emitting an electromagnetic field that permeates isotropic at c through the Box's dielectric field (a property of space).  Now any object that is within radius (r) of a certain magnitude has cause and affect on each others fields.

.....cause that's what the mechanics say

added- cause if the space had any polarity , fields would not be able to permeate.


So you are proposing the existence of something that cant find or detect? That defines something that does not exist. I dont thin kyou understand what dielectric means. 'μ0' is meaningless it has no units and appears to be two characters you have picked randomly to represent something and expect us to guess what it means.
The rest of your post is gibberish.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 02/10/2017 22:37:01
In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions.
Not really.
And there is ... an ''ether''
No there isn't.
We checked.
Well like normal MR Chemist your ability to not be able to think certainly shows in most of your replies.  You can't find or detect an ''ether'' that is dielectric and has μ0.  I know you can't understand that the dielectric properties of space are of space and not of a spacial field such as the Higg's field.
The properties of nothing being dielectric is a rather confusing thought I must agree.   But to suggest a dielectric field occupying space would suppose intelligent design.
Are you really suggesting that two likewise fields do not oppose force on each other?  The fields have mass like it or not because I didn't write these rules of forces etc.

Quote
In physics, a state of matter is one of the distinct forms in which matter can exist. Four states of matter are observable in everyday life: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. ..

Quantum fields are a state of matter , they are relatively solids to each other.

* qfm.jpg (34.48 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 3798 times)

added- When I turn on the light switch I am emitting an electromagnetic field that permeates isotropic at c through the Box's dielectric field (a property of space).  Now any object that is within radius (r) of a certain magnitude has cause and affect on each others fields.

.....cause that's what the mechanics say

added- cause if the space had any polarity , fields would not be able to permeate.


So you are proposing the existence of something that cant find or detect? That defines something that does not exist. I dont thin kyou understand what dielectric means. 'μ0' is meaningless it has no units and appears to be two characters you have picked randomly to represent something and expect us to guess what it means.
The rest of your post is gibberish.
First of all μ0 means zero permeability.  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. 
I want to explain a ''field'' that allows a negative and positive polarity to permeate through, could I say a conductive field?
This ''field'' being the ''ether'' that allows the electromagnetic fields to permeate through it isotropic.   Electromagnetic fields having the duality of being repulsive and attractive at the same time.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 03/10/2017 10:56:34
Quote from: Kr
The cube will weigh less on the Moon than on Earth, but it will not have less mass.

It weighs less because there is less magnitude of G than on Earth? i.e less applied force

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 05/10/2017 13:28:43
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 05/10/2017 13:39:53

* merge3.jpg (66.67 kB . 898x572 - viewed 4802 times)

Quantum field solidity and Quantum field merge.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2017 07:27:03
First of all μ0 means zero permeability.
Not in the real world.
it's not zero, its (still) about 1.6 H/m just as I told you before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability

Please make up another term for your made up idea.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 07/10/2017 10:46:58
First of all μ0 means zero permeability.
Not in the real world.
it's not zero, its (still) about 1.6 H/m just as I told you before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability

Please make up another term for your made up idea.
Maybe call it The Reflex who according to the lyrics of the hit by Duran Duran, is a lonely child waiting by the park.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/10/2017 11:14:23
First of all μ0 means zero permeability.
Not in the real world.
it's not zero, its (still) about 1.6 H/m just as I told you before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability

Please make up another term for your made up idea.
A vacuum on Earth in experiment or the almost vacuum of space?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 07/10/2017 11:18:20
First of all μ0 means zero permeability.
Not in the real world.
it's not zero, its (still) about 1.6 H/m just as I told you before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability

Please make up another term for your made up idea.
A vacuum on Earth in experiment or the almost vacuum of space?
If you had read the linked article you wouldn't be asking this question.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/10/2017 12:22:51
First of all μ0 means zero permeability.
Not in the real world.
it's not zero, its (still) about 1.6 H/m just as I told you before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability

Please make up another term for your made up idea.
A vacuum on Earth in experiment or the almost vacuum of space?
If you had read the linked article you wouldn't be asking this question.
Yes I would because the link does not really answer my question.   (Not what I can 'see'').
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/10/2017 12:24:19
Are you saying that  μ0 is not 0?   
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/10/2017 12:30:49
Two opposite fields merging into a N-field would have the simulating effect of physical attributes such as weight and solidity,  allowing other N-fields to interact directly with as if virtual objects of solidity.  i.e force feedback
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/10/2017 21:03:18

* merge3.jpg (66.67 kB . 898x572 - viewed 4802 times)

Quantum field solidity and Quantum field merge.
I think I have just worked out my own answer. 

r=(F1+F2)+(F1+F2)=r0
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/10/2017 02:15:38
So you were taking the mick after all.  I just came across this video.  You could of told me my notions you already know.

I can explain it far better and far more accurate though if I really wanted too.  Back to the drawing board for me, I bet you didn't consider Q.F.S , that is new to you I am sure.


P.s all these forums that say I am full of chit for years then a video of the same chit . pfffff
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/10/2017 20:04:48
Are you saying that  μ0 is not 0?   
It's not that I am saying it.
It's just that μ0 is, in fact, about 1.6 H/m
Nothing you can type here will stop that being true.

I realise you have't the understanding to recognise this fact but if it was zero, the speed of light would be infinite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
You are plainly wrong.
Why do you keep banging on about it?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/10/2017 20:08:08
So you were taking the mick after all.  I just came across this video.  You could of told me my notions you already know.

I can explain it far better and far more accurate though if I really wanted too.  Back to the drawing board for me, I bet you didn't consider Q.F.S , that is new to you I am sure.


P.s all these forums that say I am full of chit for years then a video of the same chit . pfffff

Imagine I said
" The universe is made of pancakes"
And various people pointed out that it was a silly idea.

Then I posted a video about pancake making.
Would it show that I was right?

OK, swap pancakes for QFT, and that's pretty much what you did.

Why not stop?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/10/2017 23:52:13
Why not stop?

Because I provide the ingredients of the pancake.  If we do not know the ingredients of a pancake , then we have no information about how a pancake is made.   
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/10/2017 23:53:47
Are you saying that  μ0 is not 0?   
It's not that I am saying it.
It's just that μ0 is, in fact, about 1.6 H/m
Nothing you can type here will stop that being true.

I realise you have't the understanding to recognise this fact but if it was zero, the speed of light would be infinite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
You are plainly wrong.
Why do you keep banging on about it?
By that you are saying there is an ether. What is the permeability of an electromagnetic field?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/10/2017 19:00:28
By that you are saying there is an ether.
No I am not.
It's easier if you don't make up stuff that other people "said"  but actually read what they did say.

Because I provide the ingredients of the pancake.  If we do not know the ingredients of a pancake , then we have no information about how a pancake is made. 
And when you do so, you still don't move us to a better understanding of physics.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 20/10/2017 20:04:42
And when you do so, you still don't move us to a better understanding of physics.
But every time I post some physics, I learn more and have a better understanding of ''your'' physics.  The replies are often my teachers.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/10/2017 22:45:31
And when you do so, you still don't move us to a better understanding of physics.
But every time I post some physics, I learn more and have a better understanding of ''your'' physics.  The replies are often my teachers.
For a start, what you are posting isn't physics; at best it seems to be bad postmodern poetry

You will learn faster if you ask questions than if you post balderdash- so why do you insist on the slow route?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/10/2017 00:06:29
And when you do so, you still don't move us to a better understanding of physics.
But every time I post some physics, I learn more and have a better understanding of ''your'' physics.  The replies are often my teachers.
For a start, what you are posting isn't physics; at best it seems to be bad postmodern poetry

You will learn faster if you ask questions than if you post balderdash- so why do you insist on the slow route?
What you really mean to say is what I post is not the Physics you were taught by education that is mainstream .  So why don't you try to understand and learn some new Physics that you have not learnt yet?

I am the teacher in my own new theory threads but I am also still learning because there is to much to know.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 16:03:54
Explaining.

I was going to save this for the continuation of my paper but now is the time I feel the need for explanation.

All in the universe is a complex system that exists by random chance and the coincidence of two individual opposite energies manifesting at the exact 0 point geometrical position simultaneously.

The unified polarities of fields having the ability to contract and expand  the fields that are interwoven by the very fact that all points of one field is equally attracted to all points of an opposite field to create the quantum solidity of fields.
If one field is stretched then the opposite field also stretches and if one field field contracts the opposite field contracts as they are ''glue'' like together,
The very fabric of the space being the extended infinite n-fields of the N-fields.   




Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 16:15:39
Explaining.

I was going to save this for the continuation of my paper but now is the time I feel the need for explanation.

All in the universe is a complex system that exists by random chance and the coincidence of two individual opposite energies manifesting at the exact 0 point geometrical position simultaneously.

The unified polarities of fields having the ability to contract and expand  the fields that are interwoven by the very fact that all points of one field is equally attracted to all points of an opposite field to create the quantum solidity of fields.
If one field is stretched then the opposite field also stretches and if one field field contracts the opposite field contracts as they are ''glue'' like together,
The very fabric of the space being the extended infinite n-fields of the N-fields.

If it was infinite then why would there be a need to extend it?
For example, if you had a contract to do something for an infinite amount of time, you wouldn't extend that contract to keep it for longer would you? Infinite literally means there is no end, to extend it you would have to find the end but without there being an end it is quintessentially impossible.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 16:43:08
If it was infinite then why would there be a need to extend it?
That is where my Eviscosity plays a part and Q.F.D  quantum field density.   Imagine a boat at rest at a dock.  The tide comes in the boat expands from the ocean floor.
In this instant the density of the water remains constant.   But when we talk about fields, they have dynamic density.

I am considering explaining this as Q.F.B  (quantum field buoyancy).   For example the earth is less buoyant than mars.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: atbsphotography on 03/11/2017 16:47:45
If it was infinite then why would there be a need to extend it?
That is where my Eviscosity plays a part and Q.F.D  quantum field density.   Imagine a boat at rest at a dock.  The tide comes in the boat expands from the ocean floor.
In this instant the density of the water remains constant.   But when we talk about fields, they have dynamic density.

I am considering explaining this as Q.F.B  (quantum field buoyancy).   For example the earth is less buoyant than mars.

Not really, QFB would be wrong, objects are not buoyant on a quantum level,
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 03/11/2017 16:59:11
If it was infinite then why would there be a need to extend it?
That is where my Eviscosity plays a part and Q.F.D  quantum field density.   Imagine a boat at rest at a dock.  The tide comes in the boat expands from the ocean floor.
In this instant the density of the water remains constant.   But when we talk about fields, they have dynamic density.

I am considering explaining this as Q.F.B  (quantum field buoyancy).   For example the earth is less buoyant than mars.

Not really, QFB would be wrong, objects are not buoyant on a quantum level,

You would be wrong on that assumption.  Likewise polarities give quantum buoyancy.   Have you never seen magnetic suspension?    The object in suspension is floating on the quantum solidity of the field affects.

The ''free'' space between the suspended object and field source having Q.F.S.   If we were to increase the magnitude of the source force , the object will expand away from the source. Density of the field increasing giving a further radius where the object is at equilibrium buoyancy rest.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 14:48:16
What you really mean to say is what I post is not the Physics you were taught by education that is mainstream
No
What I mean is that what you post is not the physics that works.
So, what you post doesn't work.

Re. "why don't you try to understand and learn some new Physics that you have not learnt yet? "
I would, and from time to time, I do.
But what you post is not " some new Physics that you have not learnt yet? "
What you post is useless dross that makes no sense.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 14:54:52
What you really mean to say is what I post is not the Physics you were taught by education that is mainstream
No
What I mean is that what you post is not the physics that works.
So, what you post doesn't work.

Re. "why don't you try to understand and learn some new Physics that you have not learnt yet? "
I would, and from time to time, I do.
But what you post is not " some new Physics that you have not learnt yet? "
What you post is useless dross that makes no sense.
That is strange because the physics i have posted on the N-field and n-field does work. It is ''your'' physics.

Ok Mr Chemist I am going to pretend you are not a bored troll and discuss this with you properly if you are up for the challenge?


Firstly in anticipation of your reply I would like to discuss Coulombs laws.

Quote
Coulomb's law states that: The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law

Do you accept this to be factual science and true?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 15:09:49
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law

Do you accept this to be factual science and true?

Yes.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 15:14:38
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law

Do you accept this to be factual science and true?

Yes.

We are both in agreement , I also accept this to be factual science. 

Now a question for you , can this law  also be applied to magnetic field polarity ?

Can we say:
The magnitude of the electromagnetic force of attraction between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of polarities and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 15:22:16
Can we say:
The magnitude of the electromagnetic force of attraction between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of polarities and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them?

No, we can't, because polarity doesn't have a magnitude.

That's why you need to start by learning some science.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 15:28:05
Can we say:
The magnitude of the electromagnetic force of attraction between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of polarities and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them?

No, we can't, because polarity doesn't have a magnitude.

That's why you need to start by learning some science.

You are now my teacher , hopefully I and you are going to develop my theory and make it truthful in every way by me learning what I need to learn to make my theory.

Can you start by please explaining why polarity does not have a magnitude? 

I thought/think that if we start with a single atom it has a polarity of 1e and 1p

If we then had two atoms we have a polarity of 2e and 2p


so 1 atom = 1 neg and 1 pos

two atoms = 2 neg and 2 pos

How is two of something not a greater magnitude?

added- The ''magnitude'' of polarity is directly proportional to the mass?

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 15:56:41
You are using the word "polarity" for something which is similar to "charge".
Do you man charge?
If so, why not say so?

The polarity of a charge is a binary variable; positive or negative. It has no magnitude.
It's like left handed and right handed. It barely makes sense to ask how left handed someone is; they are or they are not.

If you started out by learning some science you would understand things like this.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 16:01:33
You are using the word "polarity" for something which is similar to "charge".
Do you man charge?
If so, why not say so?

The polarity of a charge is a binary variable; positive or negative. It has no magnitude.
It's like left handed and right handed. It barely makes sense to ask how left handed someone is; they are or they are not.

If you started out by learning some science you would understand things like this.
No I mean polarity. 

But if it helps lets stick to charge a minute and the polarity of charge.

q- and q+

So you are saying if had a ''group'' of q- and q+    , that the magnitude of polarity does not change?   


q+q+q+q+
q-q-q-q-

Meaning it does not matter how big the object is the polarity will always be the same ?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 16:07:29
If you have a hydrogen atom with a single proton and a single electron ten overall, it has no charge.
Also because the electron density is spherically arranged round the proton it has no polarisation.

You say " that the magnitude of polarity does not change? "   when I have already explained that, like handedness, polarity does not have  a magnitude.
What's the point of this if you don't accept reality?

It's like asking if 123 is a more odd number than 12209?
Or is 2 more even than 64?
The odd- or even-ness doesn't have magnitude.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 16:10:10

What's the point of this if you don't accept reality?

I have not said I do not accept your answer, I am just questioning your answer deeper.

Can we say that the + and - polarity is directly proportional to the mass?

charge is not attracted or repulsed by charge, the polarities are what do the attracted and repulsing?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 16:13:54
Can we say that the + and - polarity is directly proportional to the mass?
No, we can't.
For two reasons.
The first is that polarity isn't a "quantity"
Things are not going to progress until you get that into your head.

The other point is that the charge isn't proportional to mass either. That's been explained at length before.
The simplest way to demonstrate it is that a positron has the same charge as a proton, but is about 2000 limes less massive.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 16:19:16
The first is that polarity isn't a "quantity"
That would be untrue, there is two polarities, two is a quantity.

So let me get this right ,

You are saying that the polarity of m1 is directly proportional to m2, a quantity of 2 polarities in each?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 16:27:19
OK, lets start out by clarifying what sort of variable  polarity is.
There are an infinite number of integers.
Each one is either odd or even.
That property- oddness or evenness- is  called parity.
All integers have a parity- it's either odd or even.
So, for example, the parity of 10 is "even"
But "even" is not a number, it's a description.
You can't multiply it by something.

And all numbers have just one parity.
A collection of numbers doesn't have a defined parity.
(is 3,4,5 even or odd?- it's impossible to say).

Polarity is like parity. It is not a number, it's a description.

OK.
Lets move on to charge- all objects have a charge. That charge may be zero, it may be big  or small .
Whether the charge is big or small, it also has a polarity- either positive or negative.

So it isn't the object that has a polarity, it is the charge on that object which (unless it is zero) has a polarity.

No object can have more than 1 charge (overall) so no object can have more than 1 polarity.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 04/11/2017 16:35:48
OK, lets start out by clarifying what sort of variable  polarity is
Thank you , your post is certainly something new to me, parity is something I am not familiar with and will have to look up to gain more knowledge on it.

However you said that polarity does not have a magnitude but then say it is a variable which seems contradictory and is confusing to me. Only quantities can be variables but admittedly I do not understand parity in which you are probably explaining a difference , however it is too soon for the information to have ''sunk'' in yet.

Quote
There are an infinite number of integers.

What do you mean by integers?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 17:26:31
Integers are the "whole numbers" 0,1,2,and so on, and also the negative whole numbers.

It's a variable that has one (and only one) of two (and there are only two) values.
The polarity of a charge is either positive or negative.
Those are properties, not numbers.
So you can't add them or do other arithmetic with them.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 04/11/2017 21:26:02
No, we can't, because polarity doesn't have a magnitude.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Some molecules are more polar than others and can have those polarities measured as a dipole moment.

Not that it makes Thebox's hypothesis correct, though.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/11/2017 21:49:16
No, we can't, because polarity doesn't have a magnitude.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Some molecules are more polar than others and can have those polarities measured as a dipole moment.

Not that it makes Thebox's hypothesis correct, though.
I know.
But polarity is not the same as a dipole moment.
It's the difference between polarity of a material- like water or the polarity of a thing, like an electron.
As it stands, Thebox is confused enough without adding that.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 05/11/2017 10:48:17
No, we can't, because polarity doesn't have a magnitude.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Some molecules are more polar than others and can have those polarities measured as a dipole moment.

Not that it makes Thebox's hypothesis correct, though.
I know.
But polarity is not the same as a dipole moment.
It's the difference between polarity of a material- like water or the polarity of a thing, like an electron.
As it stands, Thebox is confused enough without adding that.

Ok, to clarify this, you are saying no matter how big a mass is or how small a mass is , the polarities in both masses are equal and proportional and equal and proportional attracted and repulsed by polarity?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/11/2017 13:15:17
Ok, to clarify this, you are saying no matter how big a mass is or how small a mass is , the polarities in both masses are equal and proportional and equal and proportional attracted and repulsed by polarity?
You think that's a clarification?

Anyway. No.
Nobody said anything like that. You made it up.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 05/11/2017 15:16:38
Ok, to clarify this, you are saying no matter how big a mass is or how small a mass is , the polarities in both masses are equal and proportional and equal and proportional attracted and repulsed by polarity?
You think that's a clarification?

Anyway. No.
Nobody said anything like that. You made it up.
No, thats more or less what you are telling me.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/11/2017 16:48:07
No, thats more or less what you are telling me.
Why are you pretending that you know what I'm saying, better than I do?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 05/11/2017 16:58:47
No, thats more or less what you are telling me.
Why are you pretending that you know what I'm saying, better than I do?

Interpretation is not pretending .
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 05/11/2017 17:32:13
Interpretation is not pretending .

Bored Chemist isn't the one proposing that polarity has anything to do with how one mass attracts another.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 05/11/2017 17:52:29
Interpretation is not pretending .

Bored Chemist isn't the one proposing that polarity has anything to do with how one mass attracts another.
Well to deny it isn't is like denying any of the affects of polarity.   He said that no matter how big a mass is or how small a mass is , the polarities in both masses are equal and proportional , therefore indirectly saying  equal and proportional attracted and repulsed by polarity
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 05/11/2017 17:54:26
What is the acceleration of opposite charges towards  each other?

9.82m/s2?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/11/2017 19:10:33
He said that no matter how big a mass is or how small a mass is , the polarities in both masses are equal and proportional
Liar.
I made it clear that "proportional" isn't a word you can apply to polarity.

You just ignored it
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/11/2017 19:11:49
What is the acceleration of opposite charges towards  each other?

9.82m/s2?
It depends on their separation, the size of the charges and the masses of the charged objects.
It almost certainly won't be 9.81 m/s/s
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 05/11/2017 19:26:11
What is the acceleration of opposite charges towards  each other?

9.82m/s2?
It depends on their separation, the size of the charges and the masses of the charged objects.
It almost certainly won't be 9.81 m/s/s

So you had a guess and do not really know the answer?

Is there an answer?

Has it ever been measured?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: alancalverd on 05/11/2017 19:38:48
Depends on the mass and charge of each.

Force between two charged bodies F = q1q2/r2

acceleration of a body of mass m = F/m

so one moves towards the centre of mass at a1=  q1q2/r2m1 and the other at a2 = q1q2/r2m2

It is left as an exercise for the reader to calculate the mutual rate of approach as a function of separation r.

Has it been done? You bet. Many times, in many different forms of experiment. One of the simplest is Millikan's oil drop experiment which allows us to determine the charge of an electron as we know the acceleration of an uncharged oil drop would be g.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/11/2017 20:23:24
What is the acceleration of opposite charges towards  each other?

9.82m/s2?
It depends on their separation, the size of the charges and the masses of the charged objects.
It almost certainly won't be 9.81 m/s/s

So you had a guess and do not really know the answer?

Is there an answer?

Has it ever been measured?

Your question made as little sense as asking
"how fast does an animal run?"
The answer is "it depends".
Sorry that you didn't like it, but it's really not down to me.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 01:43:28
What is the acceleration of opposite charges towards  each other?

9.82m/s2?
It depends on their separation, the size of the charges and the masses of the charged objects.
It almost certainly won't be 9.81 m/s/s

So you had a guess and do not really know the answer?

Is there an answer?

Has it ever been measured?

Your question made as little sense as asking
"how fast does an animal run?"
The answer is "it depends".
Sorry that you didn't like it, but it's really not down to me.
Depends on what?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 04:44:21
Depends on what?

He already said what it depends on: the mass, charge and distance between the two objects. Alancalverd even listed the relevant equations. Since the charge, mass and distance between different objects is variable, the acceleration will be variable as well.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 14:19:26
Depends on what?

He already said what it depends on: the mass, charge and distance between the two objects. Alancalverd even listed the relevant equations. Since the charge, mass and distance between different objects is variable, the acceleration will be variable as well.
Charge and mass has no attractive properties, only the polarity has attractive or repulsive properties. Polarity is a constant, gravity is a constant, more than a coincidence I would say.
Mass if it were a real thing could not be a variable because G is constant and the mass of an object is attracted to the mass of another object.  But mass can be a variate though, so quite clearly a variate can not give a G constant, so mass has absolutely nothing to do with a gravity constant. 
The only constant of matter is polarities.  Therefore the conclusion I reach is that polarity  must be the cause of gravity, 1 constant equal and proportional to another constant.
There is only polarity that is equal so there is only polarity that can give a constant G result. 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 19:47:23
Charge and mass has no attractive properties, only the polarity has attractive or repulsive properties.

Unsupported statement.

Quote
Polarity is a constant, gravity is a constant, more than a coincidence I would say.

Gravity changes depending on the object in question. and how far away you are from the object. Jupiter has much more gravity than the Earth and the Earth's gravitational field is much weaker 1,000 miles away than it is when you are standing on its surface.

Quote
Mass if it were a real thing could not be a variable because G is constant and the mass of an object is attracted to the mass of another object.  But mass can be a variate though, so quite clearly a variate can not give a G constant, so mass has absolutely nothing to do with a gravity constant.

Gravity does vary. What, do you think all of the planets have the same gravitational field strength?
 
Quote
The only constant of matter is polarities.

Wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant#Table_of_physical_constants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant#Table_of_physical_constants)

Quote
Therefore the conclusion I reach is that polarity  must be the cause of gravity, 1 constant equal and proportional to another constant.

There is only polarity that is equal so there is only polarity that can give a constant G result. 

Given that your premises are flawed, your conclusion cannot be trusted.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 19:52:22
Gravity does vary. What, do you think all of the planets have the same gravitational field strength?
9.81 m/s2 pff constant
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 19:53:07
Given that your premises are flawed, your conclusion cannot be trusted.
You have not read my unwritten paper on the matter.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 19:53:43
Unsupported statement.
no its not.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 19:54:26
Gravity does vary. What, do you think all of the planets have the same gravitational field strength?
9.81 m/s2 pff constant

That's the acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface. That doesn't apply on other planets or at high altitudes on Earth.

Quote
You have not read my unwritten paper on the matter.

Thanks for stating the obvious...

Quote
no its not.

I haven't seen you support it in this thread yet.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 20:15:30
Gravity does vary. What, do you think all of the planets have the same gravitational field strength?
9.81 m/s2 pff constant

That's the acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface. That doesn't apply on other planets or at high altitudes on Earth.

Quote
You have not read my unwritten paper on the matter.

Thanks for stating the obvious...

Quote
no its not.

I haven't seen you support it in this thread yet.
Let me show something to you, I go to sleep and wake up ''knowing'' things.  I could really say my ideas I must dream up but then when I consider the ideas , sometimes they are a possibility.
I spent years on time and light to come up with my conclusions and the reality of those subjects. The N-field is not something new to me but different to the way I have been thinking about it.  So it is quite new and might take a few years to get a stage where I can explain it with ease.
So please stop expecting me to have all the answers immediately as I have to sleep to ''dream'' up an answer.

What I will tell you is this.

Abstract:  This paper is intended to give a definite shape or structure to the beginning of time and the start of the Universe.  It also intends to give energy an exact definition and by use of Coulomb's laws ,invoke a logical masterpiece that fits reality exact.

Micro-bang wave theory

According to Coulomb's Law and evidently facts , likewise polarities repulse and opposite polarities attract.  However ladies and gentlemen there is no mention or law's on the individualisation of each opposite polarity.  Meaning by this , what actions occur when considering a single polarity of one of the opposite signs?
Now according to the laws of physics and well established scientific facts, we already know ladies and gentlemen, that likewise polarities repulse!
This leaves a question in my mind about the physics of a single polarities existence and how can a single polarity retain itself when it is likewise to itself. 
The physics suggests from the very first creation of a single polarity in a 0 point space as a 0 point energy would just diminish at the speed of light as a micro bang that ''exploded'' creating a wave of itself that permeated for an infinite distance unless interacting with an obstacle in its path. 

to be continued.......edited etc, was just an example of what I really know.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 20:19:23
So please stop expecting me to have all the answers immediately as I have to sleep to ''dream'' up an answer.

Then please stop expecting us to accept your hypotheses as true until you can give us the needed answers.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 20:23:08
So please stop expecting me to have all the answers immediately as I have to sleep to ''dream'' up an answer.

Then please stop expecting us to accept your hypotheses as true until you can give us the needed answers.
I do not expect anything, I am just sharing my ideas with the scientists, what they do with my ideas is up to them as I am not a scientist.
I think talking to Bogie as helped me clear up my ideas in my own head and your questions and others questions help me to look deeper for answers.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 20:26:13
I do not expect anything, I am just sharing my ideas with the scientists, what they do with my ideas is up to them as I am not a scientist.
I think talking to Bogie as helped me clear up my ideas in my own head and your questions and others questions help me to look deeper for answers.

Then don't act like your N-field hypothesis has been proven to be true.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 20:29:59
I do not expect anything, I am just sharing my ideas with the scientists, what they do with my ideas is up to them as I am not a scientist.
I think talking to Bogie as helped me clear up my ideas in my own head and your questions and others questions help me to look deeper for answers.

Then don't act like your N-field hypothesis has been proven to be true.
Where do I say I have proven it to be true?


I have not said it is proven to be true however the facts make it very possibly true.

p.s I have proven it true in my own mind because i cant find it to be untrue.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/11/2017 20:34:12
Charge and mass has no attractive properties,
Demonstrably false.
On the lab scale this was shown by Cavendish.
On a bigger scale it's what keeps the moon in orbit etc.

Polarity is a constant
No it isn't.
more than a coincidence I would say.
Sensible people would't say it

And the rest of the post just isn't worthy of comment.
It's still time you learned some science.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/11/2017 20:34:56
I have not said it is proven to be true however the facts
You didn't cite any facts, just nonsense.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/11/2017 20:37:33
p.s I have proven it true in my own mind because i cant find it to be untrue.
That's because you have no idea what you are on about.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 20:42:50
Where do I say I have proven it to be true?

I have not said it is proven to be true however the facts make it very possibly true.

Here:

Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.

This notion of mine is correct

The difference is the n-field is not made up. It is a physical thing that has and is observed every day .
I have not made anything up in my theory I only used hard factual science that exists and is easily provable.

Quote
p.s I have proven it true in my own mind because i cant find it to be untrue.

You realize that "true until proven untrue" is the opposite of how rational thinking works, right? Should we assume that fairies, Bigfoot, invisible unicorns and everything we have failed to falsify automatically exist?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 21:46:07
p.s I have proven it true in my own mind because i cant find it to be untrue.
That's because you have no idea what you are on about.

If only that were true, I know what I am on about, not only do I know it , I can ''see'' it and if I can remember how to upscale an object in size  in Blender, I could CGI it using particle mode.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 21:48:41
You realize that "true until proven untrue" is the opposite of how rational thinking works, right? Should we assume that fairies, Bigfoot, invisible unicorns and everything we have failed to falsify automatically exist?
Well to me , the science over the years everyone has learnt me ''speaks'' to me and says it is possible. If something is possible then it is more than just the imagination.  But yes I understand I need to find something testable, maybe Hutchingson would give me a  hand.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 22:29:33
If something is possible then it is more than just the imagination.

Not necessarily. It is possible that there is a million dollars hidden under my house somewhere. Until I have some evidence that it is really there, then I don't know that it is more than my imagination, now do I?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 06/11/2017 23:54:49
If something is possible then it is more than just the imagination.

Not necessarily. It is possible that there is a million dollars hidden under my house somewhere. Until I have some evidence that it is really there, then I don't know that it is more than my imagination, now do I?
True but when the evidence is present information of science, the suggestive becomes more factual. 

No one is denying Coulomb's law in being true , which alone is the hard evidence needed for my theory.   Notice I did not say Hypothesis?

A question for you, if we have a single polarity field, do you agree it is likewise to itself?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 06/11/2017 23:59:24
True but when the evidence is present information of science, the suggestive becomes more factual.

The existing explanation for the solidity of objects uses "present information of science". At the very least, you'd have to perform an experiment that differentiates between the two explanations. Let me know when you've done that.

Quote
No one is denying Coulomb's law in being true , which alone is the hard evidence needed for my theory.   Notice I did not say Hypothesis?

I'm the one who said it was a hypothesis because that's what it is. You've done no experiments to even advance it to the point of being a theory.

Quote
A question for you, if we had a single polarity field, do you agree it is likewise to itself?

The question makes no sense to me. I don't know what "likewise to itself" is supposed to mean.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 00:16:50
The question makes no sense to me. I don't know what "likewise to itself" is supposed to mean.
Huh? I think you are being a little slow there, 

Let me explain this way ,

We have  a cube of energy 10mile    that is a single polarity we will use q for polarity and - to represent the sign.


q1=10mile

Now if you can imagine a matrix of 0 point spaces, i.e volume, all  0 points of the matrix are likewise to each other in polarity ?

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 00:24:30
Huh? I think you are being a little slow there

Where I come from, I've never heard anyone say "likewise to itself". It sounds like bad grammar to me. What are you trying to say with that phrase?

Quote
Let me explain this way ,

We have  a cube of energy 10mile    that is a single polarity we will use q for polarity and - to represent the sign.

There is no such thing as a "cube of energy". Energy is not a physically tangible object, it is a property of objects. You might as well say you have a cube of spin or a cube of speed.

Quote
q1=10mile

Since when is polarity the same as a volume?

Quote
Now if you can imagine a matrix of 0 point spaces, i.e volume, all  0 points of the matrix are likewise to each other in polarity ?

There you go again with that "likewise" thing. Are you trying to say that they all have the same charge or what?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 00:34:30
Where I come from, I've never heard anyone say "likewise to itself". It sounds like bad grammar to me. What are you trying to say with that phrase?
That all cm of a m volume of a single pole field is the same  polarity and likewise.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 00:35:59
Since when is polarity the same as a volume?
Fields
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 00:36:49
There is no such thing as a "cube of energy". Energy is not a physically tangible object, it is a property of objects. You might as well say you have a cube of spin or a cube of speed.

imagine fog filling the volume if you like , I was trying to give you something to picture.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 00:44:21
Alright, if I understand you correctly, you're just talking about a negatively or positively-charged field filling a given volume of space?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 00:48:16
Alright, if I understand you correctly, you're just talking about a negatively or positively-charged field filling a given volume of space?
Yes that's it in basic form, do you agree that any point of the field is the same and likewise to any other point of the field?

i.e likewise to itself
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 05:01:22
Yes that's it in basic form, do you agree that any point of the field is the same and likewise to any other point of the field?

i.e likewise to itself

Depends on what you mean by "the same". The strength of a vector field is certainly going to vary depending on where you are in the field. A gravitational field is stronger closer to a planet than far from it and a magnetic field is stronger closer to its poles than far from them.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2017 17:13:57
Well to me , the science over the years everyone has learnt me ''speaks'' to me and says it is possible

You should ask it to repeat itself; you clearly didn't hear it right.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 17:14:58
Yes that's it in basic form, do you agree that any point of the field is the same and likewise to any other point of the field?

i.e likewise to itself

Depends on what you mean by "the same". The strength of a vector field is certainly going to vary depending on where you are in the field. A gravitational field is stronger closer to a planet than far from it and a magnetic field is stronger closer to its poles than far from them.
It has already been said that polarity has no magnitude, the question is about the polarity not the charge or magnitude of the field. 

The polarity of one point is the same and likewise to all other points of the field yes?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2017 17:16:20
Let me explain this way ,

We have  a cube of energy 10mile    that is a single polarity we will use q for polarity and - to represent the sign.


q1=10mile

Now if you can imagine a matrix of 0 point spaces, i.e volume, all  0 points of the matrix are likewise to each other in polarity ?
That's not an explanation. It's word salad.

"The polarity of one point is the same and likewise to all other points of the field yes?"
No.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 17:16:32
Well to me , the science over the years everyone has learnt me ''speaks'' to me and says it is possible

You should ask it to repeat itself; you clearly didn't hear it right.
Why do you like being such a troll?

Stop posting unrelated rubbish dude.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 17:18:08
Let me explain this way ,

We have  a cube of energy 10mile    that is a single polarity we will use q for polarity and - to represent the sign.


q1=10mile

Now if you can imagine a matrix of 0 point spaces, i.e volume, all  0 points of the matrix are likewise to each other in polarity ?
That's not an explanation. It's word salad.

"The polarity of one point is the same and likewise to all other points of the field yes?"
No.
Huh are you mad?  So you are saying if we have a single polarity field , there is different polarity points within the field? 


I think not, the field is likewise in polarity all over to itself.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 17:25:01
The preconditions of the N-field and n-field are that two opposite polarities are ''Adam and Eve'' and ''Adam'' cannot exist without ''Eve''.

''Eve'' cannot exist without ''Adam''

Because a likewise polarity entropy by the laws of physics has to expand.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2017 17:29:14
Why don't you use the established meanings of technical terms like "polarity".
Your habit of making stuff up isn't helping anything.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 17:30:59
Why don't you use the established meanings of technical terms like "polarity".
Your habit of making stuff up isn't helping anything.
Because I have to dumb it down or you keep saying you don't understand.  It isn't making stuff up, surely the part on adam and eve is not too smart for you to understand?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 17:38:40
Re-written for people who don't understand Metaphor's

The preconditions of the N-field and n-field are that two opposite polarities which we will name ''pos and neg'' , ''pos'' cannot exist without ''neg''.

''neg'' cannot exist without ''pos''

Because a likewise polarity entropy by the laws of physics has to expand.

P.s for those who don't get what a N-field or n-field is, they are the unification of all fields merged into  quantum entangled fields and the equality of polarities of all the fields.

Meaning  in simple terms the common ground for all fields is polarities.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 17:57:00
E=(q-)+(q+)???????????????????

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2017 18:06:35
What do you think the word "polarity" means?

Do you think that anyone else on Earth uses that word for the same thing you use it for?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 18:11:30
 
What do you think the word "polarity" means?

Do you think that anyone else on Earth uses that word for the same thing you use it for?
I know what a polarity is , i.e a north and south magnetic field polarity or charge polarity, etc,  I think the physics may be something to do with spin ?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2017 18:44:38
OK, So it's something that is N or S.
Now look at this again.
I think not, the field is likewise in polarity all over to itself.

Why do you think it means something?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 20:01:01
It has already been said that polarity has no magnitude, the question is about the polarity not the charge or magnitude of the field.

The polarity of a field is whether it is positive or negative.

Quote
The polarity of one point is the same and likewise to all other points of the field yes?

For an electric field around a negatively-charged particle, yes, the field will have a negative polarity.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 20:09:19
It has already been said that polarity has no magnitude, the question is about the polarity not the charge or magnitude of the field.

The polarity of a field is whether it is positive or negative.

Quote
The polarity of one point is the same and likewise to all other points of the field yes?

For an electric field around a negatively-charged particle, yes, the field will have a negative polarity.

Why do you keep changing the question?  the question is about a single polarity field not a field surrounding a negative charged particle .
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 20:12:14
Why do you keep changing the question?  the question is about a single polarity field not a field surrounding a negative charged particle .

Then I don't know what you're talking about. If you have an electric field then you must also have an electrically-charged particle to produce that field.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 20:40:35
Why do you keep changing the question?  the question is about a single polarity field not a field surrounding a negative charged particle .

Then I don't know what you're talking about. If you have an electric field then you must also have an electrically-charged particle to produce that field.
So you can't imagine a void and  a single polarity dark energy trying to manifest?

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 20:47:48
So you can't imagine a void and  a single polarity dark energy trying to manifest?

We don't even know what dark energy is, much less whether it has polarity or not.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2017 20:55:43
trying to manifest
You seem to be writing bad Gothic literature, rather than science.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 21:18:26
trying to manifest
You seem to be writing bad Gothic literature, rather than science.
I just give up, it is like talking to brick walls who do not have the ability to think.

OK let us switch to gases and an isolated gas cloud becomes polarised to a negative polarity.   The cloud expands because every dot in the gas cloud is a likewise polarity.


OK?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 21:25:21
I just give up, it is like talking to brick walls who do not have the ability to think.

OK let us switch to gases and an isolated gas cloud becomes polarised to a negative polarity.   The cloud expands because every dot in the gas cloud is a likewise polarity.


OK?

A gas cloud where every atom of the cloud has a net negative charge will expand, yes. Such would not be the case for a field, though. Fields don't work like that.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 21:50:23
I just give up, it is like talking to brick walls who do not have the ability to think.

OK let us switch to gases and an isolated gas cloud becomes polarised to a negative polarity.   The cloud expands because every dot in the gas cloud is a likewise polarity.


OK?

A gas cloud where every atom of the cloud has a net negative charge will expand, yes. Such would not be the case for a field, though. Fields don't work like that.
Right ok, I think the penny dropped. You say fields don't work like that, I disagree, if you can now take away the visible  image of the gas cloud and replace it with the image of a field, there is no difference in the physics involved, the polarised field will expand in accordance with the physics involved.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 22:03:36
 [ Invalid Attachment ]  [ Invalid Attachment ]

Just like this, , micro bangs ''exploding'' into wave-energy
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 22:26:08
Right ok, I think the penny dropped. You say fields don't work like that, I disagree

Then you're wrong. An electric field itself does not have any electric charge. It is simply the entity which allows electric charges to interact with each other. Electric fields are composed of virtual photons, which have no electric charge and therefore cannot attract or repel one-another.

Quote
if you can now take away the visible  image of the gas cloud and replace it with the image of a field, there is no difference in the physics involved, the polarised field will expand in accordance with the physics involved.

Electric fields themselves are not charged, so no such thing will happen.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 07/11/2017 22:49:02
Right ok, I think the penny dropped. You say fields don't work like that, I disagree

Then you're wrong. An electric field itself does not have any electric charge. It is simply the entity which allows electric charges to interact with each other. Electric fields are composed of virtual photons, which have no electric charge and therefore cannot attract or repel one-another.

Quote
if you can now take away the visible  image of the gas cloud and replace it with the image of a field, there is no difference in the physics involved, the polarised field will expand in accordance with the physics involved.

Electric fields themselves are not charged, so no such thing will happen.
The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.  i.e no measured charge.  However the independent properties of polarities remain but measure a null result. A+B=N   

N=A+B 

Measuring both at the same time can only give a null result.

added

-e+e=0=N
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2017 23:25:48
The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.  i.e no measured charge.  However the independent properties of polarities remain but measure a null result. A+B=N   

N=A+B 

Measuring both at the same time can only give a null result.

added

-e+e=0=N

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm telling you that even a field around an object that does have a net charge (such as an electron) does not repel itself and expand. Electric fields do not have charge regardless of whether the object that produces them is positive, negative or neutral. They transmit the effects of the charged particles that produce them but are not charged themselves. They are the messengers but they are not the ones writing the message.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 08/11/2017 14:37:11
The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.  i.e no measured charge.  However the independent properties of polarities remain but measure a null result. A+B=N   

N=A+B 

Measuring both at the same time can only give a null result.

added

-e+e=0=N

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm telling you that even a field around an object that does have a net charge (such as an electron) does not repel itself and expand. Electric fields do not have charge regardless of whether the object that produces them is positive, negative or neutral. They transmit the effects of the charged particles that produce them but are not charged themselves. They are the messengers but they are not the ones writing the message.
Object?  You are responding in a manner that is still considering existing theories such as the Rutherford model of the atom. 

My theory does not involve particles or objects. My theory looks at objects as if they are energy.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 08/11/2017 14:39:17
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm telling you that even a field around an object that does have a net charge (such as an electron)
Because you are not measuring both polities at the same time. A+B=N

A=q1

B=q2

q1+q2 measures N always
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 08/11/2017 16:07:31
Object?  You are responding in a manner that is still considering existing theories such as the Rutherford model of the atom. 

My theory does not involve particles or objects. My theory looks at objects as if they are energy.

Then your hypothesis has already been falsified by existing experiments.

Quote
Because you are not measuring both polities at the same time. A+B=N

A=q1

B=q2

q1+q2 measures N always

So now you're saying that there is no such thing as net charge? Sorry, but that's wrong. Ions have net charge.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 08/11/2017 19:11:46
So now you're saying that there is no such thing as net charge?
Another huh from me, what are you reading ?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 08/11/2017 19:31:57
Another huh from me, what are you reading ?


q1+q2 measures N always

This makes it sound like you are saying that everything has no net charge. Otherwise, you would not have said "always".
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/11/2017 19:52:21
The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral. 
It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 14:23:11
The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.
It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.

Have you ever thought you are just not smart enough to understand it?

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/11/2017 21:58:28
The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.
It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.

Have you ever thought you are just not smart enough to understand it?


Since your ideas are contradicted by reality, my understanding doesn't enter into it.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 22:17:00
The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.
It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.

Have you ever thought you are just not smart enough to understand it?


Since your ideas are contradicted by reality, my understanding doesn't enter into it.
The reality that you cannot observe a Proton for example?   The reality that the atomic model is based on something you can not observe because atoms are too tiny?


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 09/11/2017 22:31:37
The reality that you cannot observe a Proton for example?   The reality that the atomic model is based on something you can not observe because atoms are too tiny?

You don't have to observe something visually in order to detect its presence. We've been able to detect atomic nuclei since the 1900's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment).
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 09/11/2017 23:03:53
The reality that you cannot observe a Proton for example?   The reality that the atomic model is based on something you can not observe because atoms are too tiny?

You don't have to observe something visually in order to detect its presence. We've been able to detect atomic nuclei since the 1900's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment).
Quote
discovered that every atom contains a nucleus where its positive charge and most of its mass are concentrated.

That does not prove the existence of the Proton . 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 09/11/2017 23:54:48
That does not prove the existence of the Proton . 

Have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#History)
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 10/11/2017 00:13:01
That does not prove the existence of the Proton . 

Have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#History)

Quote
He named this new fundamental building block of the nucleus the proton,

Which does not prove the nucleus is a particle.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 10/11/2017 00:21:23
And here are,

Quote
The spontaneous decay of free protons has never been observed


This is what I am on about by the likewise to itself.   Turning into wave energy.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 10/11/2017 16:51:28
Which does not prove the nucleus is a particle.

That depends upon how you define a particle. We know that the nucleus is much, much smaller than the atom as a whole, although it does have fuzzy boundaries. Particles have wave-like properties anyway.

Quote
This is what I am on about by the likewise to itself.   Turning into wave energy.

You do realize that the sentence you quoted says that proton decay has not been observed, right? So what does turning into wave energy have to do with that quote?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 10/11/2017 21:37:50
You do realize that the sentence you quoted says that proton decay has not been observed, right? So what does turning into wave energy have to do with that quote?
Because you can't observe wave energy which is permeating, it has no density.  Might be able to detect it though.

That depends upon how you define a particle. We know that the nucleus is much, much smaller than the atom as a whole, although it does have fuzzy boundaries. Particles have wave-like properties anyway.
Exactly, the nucleus itself can be just empty space that contains a positive energy.   There is nothing that says that the particle itself exists.  What we know about polarities which could explain a void beneath the surface of ''atoms''.

For example try to imagine an energy ''cloud''  that every point of the cloud was a p+  .  We know that all points would be repulsed by each other.

The above action creating a central void or defined differently  a ''flat spot'' of space.

The waves been ripples emanating from the flat spot.

This is what I 'see' about atoms.

The boundary or surface layer is made of two opposite polarities.   The likewise properties of both polarities creating a central void.   A ''spark''  strobes in this void like crossing terminals on a battery.

The surface layer has elastricity properties, it can contract or expand depending on polarity offset.  For example if the + polarity was to gain energy , it stretches but also stretches - with it.

When the energy is exhausted , it contracts back to form.

The magnitude of the force between polarities playing a vital role in void diameter.

p.s a positive nucleus , all  the negativity of space would be attracted to this point .
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 10/11/2017 21:45:43
Gravitational mass is directly proportional to the attraction of positivity and negativity of matter to any other positivity and negativity of matter.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 10/11/2017 23:45:41
Because you can't observe wave energy which is permeating, it has no density.  Might be able to detect it though.

They have mass and electric charge, both of which are conserved quantities that cannot vanish into nothingness. Due to those conservation laws, we already know what a decaying proton would look like and so far have not seen it.

Quote
Exactly, the nucleus itself can be just empty space that contains a positive energy.   There is nothing that says that the particle itself exists.  What we know about polarities which could explain a void beneath the surface of ''atoms''.

No it can't. Even if you want to call protons "positive energy", you're forgetting about neutrons. We know that there are atoms of the same chemical element that have different masses and different fundamental properties. Compare uranium-235 to uranium-238. Both have the same chemical properties but U-238 has heavier nuclei whereas U-235 is able to sustain a neutron chain reaction (unlike U-238). Neutrons are produced by chain reactions. Not only can we detect them, but we know from experiment what neutron energy levels are optimum to sustain a chain reaction in U-235.

Speaking of nuclear reactions, your model doesn't account for them. Atomic nuclei are not merely held together by electrostatic forces, because the energy released in nuclear reactions is much, much stronger than the energy released when molecules react (and molecules are held together by electrostatic forces). We know that the force which holds nuclei together is much, much shorter-ranged than the electromagnetic force because you can't get light nuclei to stick together unless you get them very close to each other (i.e. nuclear fusion).
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 01:50:24
you're forgetting about neutrons.
Again a speculation particle which the extra mass can be explained as F  because m1 is attracted to m2 and m2 is equally attracted to m1, both are applying a force of attraction so the force is times 2.   A 1kg object is only actually 1/2 that mass because the other half is the other pull  from another object.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 11/11/2017 05:35:08
Again a speculation particle which the extra mass can be explained as F  because m1 is attracted to m2 and m2 is equally attracted to m1, both are applying a force of attraction so the force is times 2.   A 1kg object is only actually 1/2 that mass because the other half is the other pull  from another object.

Interesting how you completely ignored the meat of my post. You didn't address how different isotopes can exist in your model without neutrons or how sustained nuclear chain reactions are possible without neutrons.You realize that many nuclei are not merely twice the mass of their proton content, right? Hydrogen is a good example of this. The tritium isotope is 2.99 times as massive as the protium isotope even though both isotopes have identical degrees of positive charge in their nuclei. There are also some other issues:

(1) How was the half-life of free neutrons (881.5 seconds) determined if they don't exist?
(2) How is it that free neutrons can be generated on demand if they don't exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator)
(3) How can the mass of free neutrons be measured (939.6 MeV/c2) if they don't exist? Take note that I am not talking about neutrons in a nucleus. Neutrons have a different mass in the nucleus than they do when they are free.
(4) How can neutron cross sections be measured if neutrons don't exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross_section (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross_section)
(5) What are neutron detectors detecting if not neutrons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_detection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_detection)
(6) How is it that exposure to neutron radiation can make things radioactive if neutrons don't exist?

Here's some additional reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_the_neutron#Discovery_of_the_neutron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_the_neutron#Discovery_of_the_neutron), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_detection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_detection)
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 11/11/2017 10:43:19
you're forgetting about neutrons.
Again a speculation particle which the extra mass can be explained as F  because m1 is attracted to m2 and m2 is equally attracted to m1, both are applying a force of attraction so the force is times 2.   A 1kg object is only actually 1/2 that mass because the other half is the other pull  from another object.


Absolute crap.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 11/11/2017 10:45:29
You do realize that the sentence you quoted says that proton decay has not been observed, right? So what does turning into wave energy have to do with that quote?
Because you can't observe wave energy which is permeating, it has no density.  Might be able to detect it though.

That depends upon how you define a particle. We know that the nucleus is much, much smaller than the atom as a whole, although it does have fuzzy boundaries. Particles have wave-like properties anyway.
Exactly, the nucleus itself can be just empty space that contains a positive energy.   There is nothing that says that the particle itself exists.  What we know about polarities which could explain a void beneath the surface of ''atoms''.

For example try to imagine an energy ''cloud''  that every point of the cloud was a p+  .  We know that all points would be repulsed by each other.

The above action creating a central void or defined differently  a ''flat spot'' of space.

The waves been ripples emanating from the flat spot.

This is what I 'see' about atoms.

The boundary or surface layer is made of two opposite polarities.   The likewise properties of both polarities creating a central void.   A ''spark''  strobes in this void like crossing terminals on a battery.

The surface layer has elastricity properties, it can contract or expand depending on polarity offset.  For example if the + polarity was to gain energy , it stretches but also stretches - with it.

When the energy is exhausted , it contracts back to form.

The magnitude of the force between polarities playing a vital role in void diameter.

p.s a positive nucleus , all  the negativity of space would be attracted to this point .
What you 'see about atoms'. In other words what you imagine they look like based on your lack of basic scientific understanding and mad conceptualisation of the world.
'Likewise to itself' is just mangling the English language.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 11:51:45
you're forgetting about neutrons.
Again a speculation particle ...


If you want to pretend that neutrons don't exist, you don't just have to explain the mass.
You also have to explain neutron diffraction, nuclear power, atom bombs, and neuron actuation as well as lots of other things that neutrons are actually observed to do.

You don't get to pick and choose about what bits of reality are real.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:19:55
. You didn't address how different isotopes can exist in your model without neutrons or how sustained nuclear chain reactions are possible without neutrons.
You expect a lot from an amateur scientist and a young notion ,from a person who is does not know all science.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:21:36
you're forgetting about neutrons.
Again a speculation particle which the extra mass can be explained as F  because m1 is attracted to m2 and m2 is equally attracted to m1, both are applying a force of attraction so the force is times 2.   A 1kg object is only actually 1/2 that mass because the other half is the other pull  from another object.


Absolute crap.
A bit like some of the accepted science then hey, such as time dilation?

It is a young notion so at this time it probably is a bit crappy.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:23:24
you're forgetting about neutrons.
Again a speculation particle ...


If you want to pretend that neutrons don't exist, you don't just have to explain the mass.
You also have to explain neutron diffraction, nuclear power, atom bombs, and neuron actuation as well as lots of other things that neutrons are actually observed to do.

You don't get to pick and choose about what bits of reality are real.

What I can't work out is how science got so lucky  being so right and wrong at the same time.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:25:47
'Likewise to itself' is just mangling the English language.
No it is not,  if you look in a mirror the image is likewise to yourself.   If there is cube made up of atoms and all the atoms becomes cations, then all the atoms are likewise to themselves.
pfff learn how to read.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 11/11/2017 16:28:23
You expect a lot from an amateur scientist and a young notion ,from a person who is does not know all science.

Of course I do. When you claim that your model is definitely correct, you'd better bet that I'm going ask the hard questions. If your model can't explain phenomena that the existing model can, then it's already been falsified.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:31:54
You expect a lot from an amateur scientist and a young notion ,from a person who is does not know all science.

Of course I do. When you claim that your model is definitely correct, you'd better bet that I'm going ask the hard questions. If your model can't explain phenomena that the existing model can, then it's already been falsified.
But when you own science contradicts your own model, it is time to look for an alternative model.

Start here with this premise:

Premise:  A single polarity energy/field would expand by own it's mechanism of being likewise throughout of itself.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 11/11/2017 16:36:56
But when you own science contradicts your own model...

How so?

Quote
Start here with this premise:

Premise:  A single polarity energy/field would expand by own it's mechanism of being likewise throughout of itself.

That doesn't happen in real life so your premise is already flawed. The field around a magnet stays the same size. It doesn't expand.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:42:50
That doesn't happen in real life so your premise is already flawed. The field around a magnet stays the same size. It doesn't expand.
The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole according to the contradiction of your own

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Quote
The law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle.

This here says my first premise has call for questioning.

You and I both know likewise polarities mean expansion.   If all points of a field were likewise in polarity, the field will expand according to physical laws. If it doe snot expand then it is not a single pole field.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:52:42
''You'' are telling me a likewise field does not expand but on the other hand saying likewise repulses.

That is a contradiction.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 16:57:13

* pe.jpg (35.25 kB . 898x572 - viewed 1614 times)

According to the laws these two fields do this.   All points of each field being likewise in polarity to itself.

added:

Electron field F1=q-=>4/3 πr

Proton field F1=q+=>4/3 πr
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 17:04:18
The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole
Nobody said it was.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 17:08:09
The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole
Nobody said it was.

I see you still  have no good arguments or discussion.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 17:10:49
In Q.F.S  an electron field is relatively solid to another electron field because they are both likewise.

A Proton field is solid relatively to another Proton field.


A Proton field is not solid to an electron field.

An electron field is not solid to a proton field.


A stable state is A+B=N

All points of a negative field are attracted to all points of a positive field and vice versus. The merge produces the N-field where energy is at it's densest.


added- can be demonstrated using magnets.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 17:23:22
F = GN1N2/r
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 17:27:22
added thought - two opposite polarity ''energies'' can occupy the same point simultaneously.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 17:54:58
added thought - two opposite polarity ''energies'' can occupy the same point simultaneously.
What do you think that sentence means?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 18:40:58
added thought - two opposite polarity ''energies'' can occupy the same point simultaneously.
What do you think that sentence means?
It means 0 point energy or a 0 point N-field ''particle'' that occupies the same 0 point at the same time.

added - When a N-field is split , the independent ''energies'' disperse into wave pE  by the sphericalisation process. 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 20:18:39
What do you think "zero point energy" means?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 21:09:20
What do you think "zero point energy" means?
It means geometrical points of space that have 0 dimension where it is hard to imagine something from nothing manifesting. It is the point of ''creation'' which in an infinite universe is the relative centre of each observers universe. 
However I do not agree that a 0 point energy is lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have.  E would be at it's densest at 0 point in accordance with the transverse square law and the sphericalisation process. 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 21:15:18
What do you think "zero point energy" means?
It means geometrical points of space that have 0 dimension where it is hard to imagine something from nothing manifesting. It is the point of ''creation'' which in an infinite universe is the relative centre of each observers universe. 
However I do not agree that a 0 point energy is lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have.  E would be at it's densest at 0 point in accordance with the transverse square law and the sphericalisation process. 
So, nothing to do with what everyone else means by zero point energy.

Do you understand why that makes it very difficult to understand what you are posting?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 21:28:47
So, nothing to do with what everyone else means by zero point energy.
Is English your native language/ are you reading something else?  always this I can't understand lark from you.   Stop trolling.

Quote
Zero-point energy (ZPE) or ground state energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. ... Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding zero-point energy, in particular the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention.

Guess what?  I understand it and it is not the lowest measure.

Energy is at its densest at the central point of sphericalisation.  Following the inverse square law , the wave energy weakens over a distance .  The strong force is always central where the weakened force is dynamic and drops off over a distance to where 0 applies.

E=a8e7763fac2bd02303f98c43d53d41ab.gif where S is equal to 0 of space.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 11/11/2017 21:33:33
That doesn't happen in real life so your premise is already flawed. The field around a magnet stays the same size. It doesn't expand.
The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole according to the contradiction of your own

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Quote
The law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle.

This here says my first premise has call for questioning.

You and I both know likewise polarities mean expansion.   If all points of a field were likewise in polarity, the field will expand according to physical laws. If it doe snot expand then it is not a single pole field.

Coulomb's law describes what happens between electrically-charged objects. The existing model posits that electromagnetic fields are made up of virtual photons. Photons do not have any electric charge. Coulomb's law therefore does not apply to them. The "contradiction" is all in your head.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 21:42:05
English is my native language.

I asked you what you thought ZPE meant and you said "It means geometrical points of space that have 0 dimension where it is hard to imagine something from nothing manifesting. It is the point of ''creation'' which in an infinite universe is the relative centre of each observers universe.  "

And that is nothing to do with the conventional definition which is this
"Zero-point energy (ZPE) or ground state energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have."

When you start making up definitions like that it is you who is abusing the language, rather than me.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 21:43:48
Guess what?  I understand it and it is not the lowest measure.
No you don't.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 21:44:22
Energy is at its densest at the central point of sphericalisation.  Following the inverse square law , the wave energy weakens over a distance .  The strong force is always central where the weakened force is dynamic and drops off over a distance to where 0 applies.

E= where S is equal to 0 of space.

Word salad.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 22:05:42
That doesn't happen in real life so your premise is already flawed. The field around a magnet stays the same size. It doesn't expand.
The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole according to the contradiction of your own

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Quote
The law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle.

This here says my first premise has call for questioning.

You and I both know likewise polarities mean expansion.   If all points of a field were likewise in polarity, the field will expand according to physical laws. If it doe snot expand then it is not a single pole field.

Coulomb's law describes what happens between electrically-charged objects. The existing model posits that electromagnetic fields are made up of virtual photons. Photons do not have any electric charge. Coulomb's law therefore does not apply to them. The "contradiction" is all in your head.
Electromagnetic fields have polarity and are not made up of photons. Are you denying that magnets have poles?

Therefore the slip in insight is yours.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 22:07:35
Energy is at its densest at the central point of sphericalisation.  Following the inverse square law , the wave energy weakens over a distance .  The strong force is always central where the weakened force is dynamic and drops off over a distance to where 0 applies.

E= where S is equal to 0 of space.

Word salad.
Because you say so, it is only word salad if you do not understand it.  I expect about only the top 5% in the world would understand it.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 22:18:21
Energy is at its densest at the central point of sphericalisation.  Following the inverse square law , the wave energy weakens over a distance .  The strong force is always central where the weakened force is dynamic and drops off over a distance to where 0 applies.

E= where S is equal to 0 of space.

Word salad.
Because you say so, it is only word salad if you do not understand it.  I expect about only the top 5% in the world would understand it.
How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?

Do you understand the phrase "delusions of grandeur"?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 22:19:49
Electromagnetic fields have polarity and are not made up of photons.
Yes they are.
Anyone with a decent understanding of physics would know that. You don't.
You don't understand physics.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 22:34:48
Electromagnetic fields have polarity and are not made up of photons.
Yes they are.
Anyone with a decent understanding of physics would know that. You don't.
You don't understand physics.
Photons are a hypothetical virtual particle .   Fields are made of dark energy, visible light is an invert in the dark energy field(s), an invert to cause the field to wave Q.F.F . 
You don't understand Physics that is why you are a chemist. :D
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 11/11/2017 22:37:14
Do you understand the phrase "delusions of grandeur"?
Have I heard of delusions of grandeur?  hmm... of course. 

I notice you can't attack the physics involved in the N-field and Q.F.S
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2017 22:53:37
I notice you can't attack the physics involved in the N-field and Q.F.S
There isn't any physics to attack.

I see you forgot to answer my question.
How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 11/11/2017 23:33:04
Electromagnetic fields have polarity and are not made up of photons.

Remember, we are talking about the existing model here. Your original claim is that the currently-accepted model contradicts itself. You claim that this is so because a field is supposed to repel itself due to Coulomb's law. However, Coulomb's law posits that objects with the same electric charge repel each other. The current model posits that fields are composed of entities that are not electrically-charged (i.e. photons). Since they are not charged, Coulomb's law does not say that the particles in a field are supposed to repel each other. The existing model does not contradict itself because it does not posit what you claim that it posits. This is what we call the "straw-man fallacy".

Quote
Are you denying that magnets have poles?

No, I am not denying that magnets have poles. What I am denying is that you can apply the properties of the magnet to the properties of the magnetic field itself. The field is merely the way that the poles communicate with each other.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 00:14:53
There isn't any physics to attack.
bs
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 00:15:48
Your original claim is that the currently-accepted model contradicts itself.
Please provide reference of where I say that.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 00:23:25
The field is merely the way that the poles communicate with each other.
communicate really? they can speak?  Why do you ignore the actual theory and keep trying to defend present information?

If it were not polarity , all charge and energies would be likewise and not do anything.


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 12/11/2017 03:35:25
Please provide reference of where I say that.

Here you are:

But when you own science contradicts your own model, it is time to look for an alternative model.

The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole according to the contradiction of your own

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Quote
The law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle.

This here says my first premise has call for questioning.

You and I both know likewise polarities mean expansion.   If all points of a field were likewise in polarity, the field will expand according to physical laws. If it doe snot expand then it is not a single pole field.

Quote
''You'' are telling me a likewise field does not expand but on the other hand saying likewise repulses.

That is a contradiction.

It certainly sounds like you are saying that the currently-accepted model of electromagnetics contradicts itself. If that's not what you are saying, then good. The currently-accepted model explains existing phenomena, unlike your N-field which can't explain neutron-related phenomena and we are supposed to overlook that major flaw because you are an "amateur scientist" with a "young theory".

communicate really? they can speak?

I'm using communication in its loosest sense. Communication is an exchange of information. I guess that means you don't think sign language is a form of communication, since you seem to think communication automatically implies speaking. Fields exchange information about the particles that generate them. That's what I meant by "communicate".

Quote
Why do you ignore the actual theory and keep trying to defend present information?

When you say "the actual theory", are you talking about your N-field or about the currently-accepted model of matter? If you'll recall, I did address your theory and pointed out the holes in it regarding its inability to explain neutron-related phenomena. You responded by complaining about being an amateur scientist with a young theory. If you are going to acknowledge short-comings in your own ideas, then you need to be more humble about it instead of insisting that you've got the right idea and everyone else is wrong.

Quote
If it were not polarity , all charge and energies would be likewise and not do anything.

You keep conflating the polarity of a field and the charge that generates the field. That's like saying that a rock dropped into a pool and the waves created by that rock are the same thing.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 09:58:40
There isn't any physics to attack.
bs
There is plenty of bs, but no physics.
Please address at least one of those aspects.

And I'm going to keep asking this until you answer it:
How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 16:06:29
There isn't any physics to attack.
bs
There is plenty of bs, but no physics.
Please address at least one of those aspects.

And I'm going to keep asking this until you answer it:
How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?


bs = though you don't actually understand basic science,
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 16:17:38
bs = though you don't actually understand basic science,

Would you like to try that in English?

Meanwhile, How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 12/11/2017 16:27:34
You don't understand Physics that is why you are a chemist
And what are you? You certainly don't work in any science related field. Decorator wasn't it?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 16:46:08
You don't understand Physics that is why you are a chemist
And what are you? You certainly don't work in any science related field. Decorator wasn't it?
It's the all about me show , wow, discuss science or don't bother posting,
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 16:47:43
Would you like to try that in English?
It was in English, want try to read without so much ambiguity?


I m a smart, remembering present information doesn't make a person smart. Enough said...
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 16:49:30
Please provide reference of where I say that.

Here you are:

But when you own science contradicts your own model, it is time to look for an alternative model.

The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole according to the contradiction of your own

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law
Quote
The law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle.

This here says my first premise has call for questioning.

You and I both know likewise polarities mean expansion.   If all points of a field were likewise in polarity, the field will expand according to physical laws. If it doe snot expand then it is not a single pole field.

Quote
''You'' are telling me a likewise field does not expand but on the other hand saying likewise repulses.

That is a contradiction.

It certainly sounds like you are saying that the currently-accepted model of electromagnetics contradicts itself. If that's not what you are saying, then good. The currently-accepted model explains existing phenomena, unlike your N-field which can't explain neutron-related phenomena and we are supposed to overlook that major flaw because you are an "amateur scientist" with a "young theory".

communicate really? they can speak?

I'm using communication in its loosest sense. Communication is an exchange of information. I guess that means you don't think sign language is a form of communication, since you seem to think communication automatically implies speaking. Fields exchange information about the particles that generate them. That's what I meant by "communicate".

Quote
Why do you ignore the actual theory and keep trying to defend present information?

When you say "the actual theory", are you talking about your N-field or about the currently-accepted model of matter? If you'll recall, I did address your theory and pointed out the holes in it regarding its inability to explain neutron-related phenomena. You responded by complaining about being an amateur scientist with a young theory. If you are going to acknowledge short-comings in your own ideas, then you need to be more humble about it instead of insisting that you've got the right idea and everyone else is wrong.

Quote
If it were not polarity , all charge and energies would be likewise and not do anything.

You keep conflating the polarity of a field and the charge that generates the field. That's like saying that a rock dropped into a pool and the waves created by that rock are the same thing.
A positive or negative can not exist independently of each other.

Make a fist, open your fist sharply making a pfff sound as you do it, that is what likewise polarity energy does, it goes pfff and expands .
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 16:59:27
A positive or negative can not exist independently of each other.
You just broke the irony meter.

Anyway, How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 17:03:25

You don't understand Physics that is why you are a chemist

It's the all about me show , wow, discuss science or don't bother posting,

Which do you mean?
Should you stick to the science (if you can find some)  or should you pass rude comments about me being a chemist
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 12/11/2017 17:36:23
A positive or negative can not exist independently of each other.

Sure they can. Cathode ray tubes separate electrons from their atoms quite readily. You can prove that they are negatively-charged by the way they react to magnetic fields: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathode_ray)

Quote
Make a fist, open your fist sharply making a pfff sound as you do it, that is what likewise polarity energy does, it goes pfff and expands .

You've yet to demonstrate that such a thing actually happens in real life.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 18:09:12
You've yet to demonstrate that such a thing actually happens in real life.
Likewise polarities repulse
likewise polarities can not exist without opposite polarites
Q.F.S is real and can be shown with magnets.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 19:21:43
likewise polarities can not exist without opposite polarites
Except, as has been pointed out, they do.

Anyway, How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 21:53:20
Except, as has been pointed out, they do.
The repulsion would not allow the existence
Coulumb's law shows this
Likewise can not exist itself.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/11/2017 21:59:43
Coulumb's law shows this
No it doesn't.
Likewise can not exist itself.
If you stop torturing the language like that it will be possible for us to know what you mean.
The repulsion would not allow the existence
Reality does not agree with you, as illustrated by, for example, the CRT.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 12/11/2017 23:03:05
Likewise polarities repulse
likewise polarities can not exist without opposite polarites
Q.F.S is real and can be shown with magnets.

So how do you explain the existence of cathode rays?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 12/11/2017 23:17:33
Likewise polarities repulse
likewise polarities can not exist without opposite polarites
Q.F.S is real and can be shown with magnets.

So how do you explain the existence of cathode rays?
Ions maybe, I am not really familiar with a Cathode ray nor how a CRT screen works.  Why not try answering some of my questions for a change instead of asking me questions.

If you took an imaginary ball of positive polarity energy in your hand and squeezed it , it would have an opposing force?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 01:20:47
Ions maybe, I am not really familiar with a Cathode ray nor how a CRT screen works.

It was actually hypothesized at one point that cathode rays were composed of ions, but that was falsified when the mass of cathode rays was measured and found to be about 1,800 times lighter than even hydrogen atoms. The mass was measured by the degree to which the rays were deflected by electrically-charged plates.

Quote
If you took an imaginary ball of positive polarity energy in your hand and squeezed it , it would have an opposing force?

No. You can't squeeze energy.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 01:27:08
No. You can't squeeze energy.
You have a poor imagination, if it helps you have a glove on that is composed of only electrons and you going to squeeze an electron cloud.

The cloud has opposing force right?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 02:26:27
You have a poor imagination

You can imagine whatever you want to. That doesn't mean that what you imagine is physically possible.

Quote
if it helps you have a glove on that is composed of only electrons and you going to squeeze an electron cloud.

The cloud has opposing force right?

If you're talking about electrons being squeezed against other electrons, yes, a repulsive force will develop between the electrons. That's because electrons all have a negative charge. That works for a cloud composed of electrons because the cloud is composed of negatively-charged entities. That analogy will fall apart if you try to apply it to a field by itself, since the field is not electrically-charged.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 02:53:00
If you're talking about electrons being squeezed against other electrons, yes, a repulsive force will develop between the electrons.
Now that was not too difficult to answer was it?

So... if we took two individual electrons and fired them at each other, they would collide and be solid relative to each other?



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 04:21:22
So... if we took two individual electrons and fired them at each other, they would collide and be solid relative to each other?

It's a little hard to say that they would be "solid" in the classical sense of the word. States of matter like solid, liquid and gas are emergent properties of large groups of particles. The exact behavior of two electrons interacting would depend on how fast they are moving. If they are moving slowly, they will just deflect one-another's paths due to electric repulsion. If they are moving very quickly, it's possible that the collision will generate other kinds of particles.

Since we are discussing the structure of matter, I thought this would be a very good video to post. It's a reconstruction of the original gold foil experiment using modern technology:

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 08:50:12
So... if we took two individual electrons and fired them at each other, they would collide and be solid relative to each other?



It's a little hard to say that they would be "solid" in the classical sense of the word. States of matter like solid, liquid and gas are emergent properties of large groups of particles. The exact behavior of two electrons interacting would depend on how fast they are moving. If they are moving slowly, they will just deflect one-another's paths due to electric repulsion. If they are moving very quickly, it's possible that the collision will generate other kinds of particles.

Since we are discussing the structure of matter, I thought this would be a very good video to post. It's a reconstruction of the original gold foil experiment using modern technology:

Thank you for sharing the interesting video, I tried something similar using a CRT tv and placing tin foil over the screen.  The foil sucked into the screen and to my surprise the television went bang.

Quote
If they are moving slowly, they will just deflect one-another's paths due to electric repulsion.

You mean likewise polarity repulsion?

Ok , so if we have a field constructed of electrons and a second field constructed of electrons, the fields are ''solid'' to each other?

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 18:54:07
You mean likewise polarity repulsion?

Between electrically-charged objects specifically, yes.

Quote
Ok , so if we have a field constructed of electrons and a second field constructed of electrons, the fields are ''solid'' to each other?

You've basically described the current model of why objects are tangible: electrical repulsion between electrons prevents physical objects from phasing through each other. However, a collection of electrons alone would not make a stable physical object. For that reason, I'd say that if you started off with two collections of electrons beside each other, both of them would explode. You can't exactly call such a collection "solid". They'd behave more like rapidly expanding gas clouds.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 19:27:33
They'd behave more like rapidly expanding gas clouds.
Exactly, what I refer to as micro bangs except it is the ''particle'' itself that rapidly expands.   Do you agree that all points of an electron are likewise in polarity to all other points of the same electron?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 19:29:50
Exactly, what I refer to as micro bangs except it is the ''particle'' itself that rapidly expands.   Do you agree that all points of an electron are likewise in polarity to all other points of the same electron?

As far as can be told by experiment, electrons are point particles. There is only one point. A single point isn't going to repel itself.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 19:48:05
Exactly, what I refer to as micro bangs except it is the ''particle'' itself that rapidly expands.   Do you agree that all points of an electron are likewise in polarity to all other points of the same electron?

As far as can be told by experiment, electrons are point particles. There is only one point. A single point isn't going to repel itself.
This is where 0 is applied , my single point has a volume of 1 . If it has dimensions it can't be a single point, it would have to be a 3 dimensional point 0.

Ok I understand what you are saying, but in a 3 dimensional point there would be certainly expansion by the repulsive forces .

But ok, I think you are understanding the notion more.

Of course if we were discussing protons, the same applies about the repulsive force?



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 19:56:04
This is where 0 is applied , my single point has a volume of 1 . If it has dimensions it can't be a single point, it would have to be a 3 dimensional point 0.

Ok I understand what you are saying, but in a 3 dimensional point there would be certainly expansion by the repulsive forces .

There is no such thing as a 3-dimensional point. If it has dimensions, then it isn't a point. Points have no volume whatsoever. That automatically excludes any application of volume to point particles. I would also like to point out that the idea of a subatomic particle spontaneously expanding would imply that its associated wavelength will expand too. Since an increase in wavelength means a decrease in energy, a particle cannot expand without destroying energy. That violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. So no such thing can happen.

Quote
Of course if we were discussing protons, the same applies about the repulsive force?

They are slightly different. Protons, unlike electrons, have internal structure in the form of quarks which are strongly bound together by gluon fields. The very strong attractive forces between the quarks keeps protons stable (or metastable, if they do in fact decay after an extremely long time period).
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/11/2017 20:34:33
If you're talking about electrons being squeezed against other electrons, yes, a repulsive force will develop between the electrons.
Now that was not too difficult to answer was it?

So... if we took two individual electrons and fired them at each other, they would collide and be solid relative to each other?

If  take two nitrogen molecules and push them together they repel each other.
By your "argument" nitrogen gas is a solid.

Do you understand why people don't think you understand science?

Anyway, How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 20:46:48
I too am interested in why you think your intellect is on par with the top 5% of scientists.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 21:11:45
If  take two nitrogen molecules and push them together they repel each other.
By your "argument" nitrogen gas is a solid.
Of course nitrogen gas is a solid relative to nitrogen gas.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 21:13:56
I too am interested in why you think your intellect is on par with the top 5% of scientists.
Who said scientists?   
 Good memory is not being smart, smart is the ability to adapt.

In my story, I am the hero of the story, so I have to be smarter than the ''enemy'' or I would not be the hero of my story.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 13/11/2017 21:24:01
In my imagination, I am the hero of the story, so I have to be smarter than the ''enemy'' or I would not be the hero of my story.

There, fixed it for you.
Nobody said tha good memory is being smart. Being smart is being able to utilise information and reason with it. Ergo, you are most definitely not in the top 5%.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 21:30:11
In my imagination, I am the hero of the story, so I have to be smarter than the ''enemy'' or I would not be the hero of my story.

There, fixed it for you.
Nobody said tha good memory is being smart. Being smart is being able to utilise information and reason with it. Ergo, you are most definitely not in the top 5%.

Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out think me.   I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exact. 
I also defined darkness as a visual property of matter which is also exact.
In time I will define gravity and other stuff.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/11/2017 21:34:54
In time I will define gravity and other stuff.
You may find that someone already did that.
Of course, there's nothing to stop you defining gravity as something different from what everybody else means by the word.

If you plan to start redefining words you should probably learn more about how words work.
For example
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out think me. "
should be
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out-think me. "
 or even
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can outthink me. "

and when you say " I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exact.  "
it suggests that you don't know what an adverb is.
You should have said " I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exactly.  "

Well, obviously, you shouldn't have said any of those things because they are not true.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/11/2017 21:36:17
Of course nitrogen gas is a solid

It's probably time you stopped this sort of thing; you just look silly.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 21:39:10
In time I will define gravity and other stuff.
You may find that someone already did that.
Of course, there's nothing to stop you defining gravity as something different from what everybody else means by the word.

If you plan to start redefining words you should probably learn more about how words work.
For example
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out think me. "
should be
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out-think me. "
 or even
"Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can outthink me. "

and when you say " I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exact.  "
it suggests that you don't know what an adverb is.
You should have said " I destroyed Einstein's time dilation and defined time exactly.  "

Well, obviously, you shouldn't have said any of those things because they are not true.
Well obviously you understood it or you would not be able to correct it.  So why be such an ''idiot'' about it?

I notice you did not challenge the ideas but again try to focus on me.  There isn't a single ''troll'' on the planet who can upset me or make me irate, I have to pretend to get irate .

Putting simply  I am a genius and most of you are not.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 21:40:29
Of course nitrogen gas is a solid

It's probably time you stopped this sort of thing; you just look silly.

Its about time you listened to somebody who understands more than you do. Humble pie costs nothing.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/11/2017 21:58:38
Putting simply  I am a genius and most of you are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 13/11/2017 22:03:38
Putting simply  I am a genius and most of you are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
[/qu
Putting simply  I am a genius and most of you are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
You wished, then I would not be such a ''nightmare'' to the stereotypical scientist. Pure logic , something in which you lack.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 13/11/2017 23:58:06
Who said scientists?

Alright, not the top 5% of scientists, but the top 5% of everyone. About 5% of the population scores above 125 on IQ tests. I once took an IQ test as a child and came out as 136. I guess that makes me in the top 5% too. I guess you're not so special.

Quote
Of course nitrogen gas is a solid relative to nitrogen gas.

"Solid" is a state of matter. The better word to use here is "tangible".

Quote
In my story, I am the hero of the story, so I have to be smarter than the ''enemy'' or I would not be the hero of my story.

Everybody is the "hero" of their own story, but that doesn't automatically make them right.

Quote
Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out think me.

Says the guy who thought a piece of modern art was proof of aliens. Please, try to be more humble.

Quote
You wished, then I would not be such a ''nightmare'' to the stereotypical scientist.

Whoever said you were? Most scientists probably don't even know you exist.

Feel free to address my last post about electrons and protons if you want to continue.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 14/11/2017 01:50:40
They are slightly different. Protons, unlike electrons, have internal structure in the form of quarks which are strongly bound together by gluon fields. The very strong attractive forces between the quarks keeps protons stable (or metastable, if they do in fact decay after an extremely long time period).
Completely subjective.   If there were 3 quarks they would repulse each other.   
I would also like to point out that the idea of a subatomic particle spontaneously expanding would imply that its associated wavelength will expand too. Since an increase in wavelength means a decrease in energy, a particle cannot expand without destroying energy.
HUh?  it expands into potential wave energy ,  how do you conclude it destroys energy? It changes form that's all.


''Quarks'' are likewise to each other in polarity, they would repulse each other so can not be so.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 14/11/2017 02:19:00
Completely subjective.

Not at all. We have the experimental evidence for them. Even before quarks were detected, they were hypothesized to explain the existence of the "particle zoo" of hadrons. Once the model was pieced together, it became obvious that another particle must exist which was composed of a combination of quarks not yet seen (three "strange" quarks). That is, if the quark model was correct, then it should be possible to produce this particular particle (which was called the omega minus). The mass,and decay products were predicted in advance and those predictions were based on the quark model in 1961. The omega minus was finally discovered in 1964, giving good support for the quark model.

Quarks were first seen directly in deep inelastic scattering experiments. Since particles become smaller (i.e. have a shorter wavelength) the more energy they have, very energetic particles like high speed electrons can be used to probe the internal structure of objects even if they are as small as a proton. The trajectory and velocity of these particles after the collision reveals information about what they are scattering off of. Slamming energetic electrons against protons revealed that the electrons were not scattering off of a single object, but actually three objects, just as the quark model predicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering).

Quote
If there were 3 quarks they would repulse each other.

The electrostatic repulsion is more than made up for by the strong nuclear force holding the quarks together. Besides, some quarks have a positive charge and some a negative charge.

Quote
HUh?  it expands into potential wave energy

What is potential wave energy?

Quote
how do you conclude it destroys energy? It changes form that's all.

The "size" of a subatomic particle is strongly correlated with its wavelength (which in turn is linked to its energy). Change one and you change the other.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 14/11/2017 02:27:11
Not at all. We have the experimental evidence for them. Even before quarks were detected, they were hypothesized to explain the existence of the "particle zoo" of hadrons. Once the model was pieced together, it became obvious that another particle must exist which was composed of a combination of quarks not yet seen (three "strange" quarks). That is, if the quark model was correct, then it should be possible to produce this particular particle (which was called the omega minus). The mass,and decay products were predicted in advance and those predictions were based on the quark model in 1961. The omega minus was finally discovered in 1964, giving good support for the quark model.

Quarks were first seen directly in deep inelastic scattering experiments. Since particles become smaller (i.e. have a shorter wavelength) the more energy they have, very energetic particles like high speed electrons can be used to probe the internal structure of objects even if they are as small as a proton. The trajectory and velocity of these particles after the collision reveals information about what they are scattering off of. Slamming energetic electrons against protons revealed that the electrons were not scattering off of a single object, but actually three objects, just as the quark model predicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering.
First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.
You say the Quarks are  held together by this magic force that overrides the electrostatic repulsion of the likewise forces. Without a direct observation these are no more than ''God'' theories, to say something exists without direct proof is just fooling oneself.

What is potential wave energy?
Potential energy that has permeated that much it has no density. However transversely it be can be regathered .
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 14/11/2017 02:46:24
First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark.

Yet that's exactly what particle accelerators do. It's not any different than looking at an object with your own eyes. You can observe and deduce the properties of an object by detecting the light reflecting off of it with your eyes. In exactly the same way, particle accelerators observe and deduce the properties of objects by detecting the particles reflecting off of them and into their detectors. The only difference is the medium doing the measuring (light vs. charged particles) and the size scale (macroscopic vs. sub-microscopic).

Quote
The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.

Then your N-field is entirely hypothetical, because you've never made a positive ID of an electron field merging with a proton field to produce an N-field by observation. I guess that means that you believe that the realm of the sub-microscopic will forever be a mystery and that any explanation for what happens at that level will never be more than a mere hypothesis because we will never see things at that scale "directly".

Quote
You say the Quarks are  held together by this magic force that overrides the electrostatic repulsion of the likewise forces.

The gluon, the particle that mediates the strong force, has had plenty of its properties measured by experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Experimental_observations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Experimental_observations).

If protons are not composed of smaller particles, then how does your model explain the results of the deep inelastic scattering experiments? How were the instruments fooled into detecting three objects if there was only one? How were scientists able to accurately predict the existence and properties of the omega minus particle before it was discovered?

Quote
Without a direct observation these are no more than ''God'' theories, to say something exists without direct proof is just fooling oneself.

That certainly applies to your N-field. You've never had a direct observation of it.

Quote
Potential energy that has permeated that much it has no density. However transversely it be can be regathered .

An object with a finite energy density cannot spread out enough to reach no density. That would require it to spread infinitely.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 14/11/2017 06:50:30
How were the instruments fooled into detecting three objects if there was only one? How were scientists able to accurately predict the existence and properties of the omega minus particle before it was discovered?
I would not be sure, maybe I do not know enough at this time to give an answer.  I do not really understand the proof you offer so it is hard to say. 
I think you may have just destroyed my N-field but you certainty have not destroyed my n-field or Q.F.S .

Please tell me what you know about the earths electromagnetic field, for example I am in England, when I look around me , what polarity am I observing at my location?


I think I observe an electron-proton field both polarities. A+B=n


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 14/11/2017 15:19:10
Quote
I would not be sure, maybe I do not know enough at this time to give an answer.  I do not really understand the proof you offer so it is hard to say.

The results of that experiment are described in this video. It describes what new phenomena were observed as the energy levels used to probe the proton go higher and higher. It can, admittedly, be difficult to understand the explanations at times. If you can withstand the robotic Ringo Starr voice that is used in the video, it should at least be somewhat illuminating. Start watching it at minute 44:




you certainty have not destroyed my n-field or Q.F.S

Then at least you must relegate it to the realm of a hypothesis, since by your own admission anything that has not had a positive ID by observation is just a hypothesis.

Quote
Please tell me what you know about the earths electromagnetic field, for example I am in England, when I look around me , what polarity am I observing at my location?

I would say that you'd have a north magnetic pole in England, but I can't be sure of that because there can be a lot of local variations in a magnetic field because the Earth is not uniform. Its strength certainly isn't: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84266 (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84266)

Quote
I think I observe an electron-proton field both polarities. A+B=n

Of course you have both polarities when an electron and proton are involved. What shape does your model predict atoms should be? By what reasoning should they have that given shape?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 14/11/2017 17:27:51
Quote
I would not be sure, maybe I do not know enough at this time to give an answer.  I do not really understand the proof you offer so it is hard to say.

The results of that experiment are described in this video. It describes what new phenomena were observed as the energy levels used to probe the proton go higher and higher. It can, admittedly, be difficult to understand the explanations at times. If you can withstand the robotic Ringo Starr voice that is used in the video, it should at least be somewhat illuminating. Start watching it at minute 44:




you certainty have not destroyed my n-field or Q.F.S

Then at least you must relegate it to the realm of a hypothesis, since by your own admission anything that has not had a positive ID by observation is just a hypothesis.

Quote
Please tell me what you know about the earths electromagnetic field, for example I am in England, when I look around me , what polarity am I observing at my location?

I would say that you'd have a north magnetic pole in England, but I can't be sure of that because there can be a lot of local variations in a magnetic field because the Earth is not uniform. Its strength certainly isn't: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84266 (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84266)

Quote
I think I observe an electron-proton field both polarities. A+B=n

Of course you have both polarities when an electron and proton are involved. What shape does your model predict atoms should be? By what reasoning should they have that given shape?
I have stopped temporarily to discuss 4.35s into the video where the ray are split into 3. Now to me, they would only split if they were likewise in polarity?

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 14/11/2017 20:47:25
I have stopped temporarily to discuss 4.35s into the video where the ray are split into 3. Now to me, they would only split if they were likewise in polarity?

Unfortunately, I don't know what part in the video you are talking about. Do you mean 44:35?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 14/11/2017 21:11:45
I have stopped temporarily to discuss 4.35s into the video where the ray are split into 3. Now to me, they would only split if they were likewise in polarity?

Unfortunately, I don't know what part in the video you are talking about. Do you mean 44:35?
No 4 mins 10 seconds onwards. It says it emits a beam and the beam splits into 3.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 14/11/2017 21:43:27
No 4 mins 10 seconds onwards. It says it emits a beam and the beam splits into 3.

Oh, I see now. No, the reason that they split up is because each kind of radiation reacts differently to a magnetic field. Gamma rays have no electric charge or magnetic poles and so do not react to the applied magnetic field at all. Alpha rays are positively-charged and beta rays are negatively-charged, so they both react in opposite ways to the applied magnetic field, bending in opposite directions.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 14/11/2017 21:51:34
Alpha rays are positively-charged and beta rays are negatively-charged, so they both react in opposite ways to the applied magnetic field, bending in opposite directions.[/quot]

Ok , what is the polarity of the magnetic field?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/11/2017 21:52:44
First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.
So, all that nonsense you have spouted throughout this thread can also be disregarded and the thread closed?

Or are you saying there's something special about your made up ( and unsupported) stuff that makes it better than the current (supported) theories?
If so, what?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/11/2017 21:54:21
Alpha rays are positively-charged and beta rays are negatively-charged, so they both react in opposite ways to the applied magnetic field, bending in opposite directions.[/quot]

Ok , what is the polarity of the magnetic field?
Typically perpendicular to the paper on which the mage is drawn.
If you knew enough physics to hold a meaningful conversation about it, you could work out which way the magnetic field is pointing.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 14/11/2017 23:27:57
Ok , what is the polarity of the magnetic field?

Both poles are present. The path of charged particles are curved into circles when they move through a magnetic field (but in the animation, the particles hit a target before they can make a complete circle). Here's how the direction of the curve is found:

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2017 11:02:50
First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.
So, all that nonsense you have spouted throughout this thread can also be disregarded and the thread closed?

Or are you saying there's something special about your made up ( and unsupported) stuff that makes it better than the current (supported) theories?
If so, what?
Shrugs shoulders and looks up to the sky for an answer. ...............Q.F.S and the n-field still remains although the N-field may not.

The n-field would be the unification of invisible fields that permeate into space.


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2017 11:03:24
Ok , what is the polarity of the magnetic field?

Both poles are present. The path of charged particles are curved into circles when they move through a magnetic field (but in the animation, the particles hit a target before they can make a complete circle). Here's how the direction of the curve is found:

South magnetic pole at the top?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 15/11/2017 19:33:53
South magnetic pole at the top?

I believe so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bored Chemist.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2017 19:37:47
First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.
So, all that nonsense you have spouted throughout this thread can also be disregarded and the thread closed?

Or are you saying there's something special about your made up ( and unsupported) stuff that makes it better than the current (supported) theories?
If so, what?
Shrugs shoulders and looks up to the sky for an answer. ...............Q.F.S and the n-field still remains although the N-field may not.

The n-field would be the unification of invisible fields that permeate into space.



You seem not to understand.
Your other made up stuff suffers the same fault as the made up N field.
You have no  basis for any of them.
so, regarding "Q.F.S and the n-field still remains "
No they don't.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2017 20:19:01
First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.
So, all that nonsense you have spouted throughout this thread can also be disregarded and the thread closed?

Or are you saying there's something special about your made up ( and unsupported) stuff that makes it better than the current (supported) theories?
If so, what?
Shrugs shoulders and looks up to the sky for an answer. ...............Q.F.S and the n-field still remains although the N-field may not.

The n-field would be the unification of invisible fields that permeate into space.



You seem not to understand.
Your other made up stuff suffers the same fault as the made up N field.
You have no  basis for any of them.
so, regarding "Q.F.S and the n-field still remains "
No they don't.
You seem to be adopting a style of writing :D

You are right of course I do not understand my own ideas (not).   

Likewise polarities repulse

Likewise polarities are solid relative to each other.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2017 20:22:14
Straight forward anyway, the cations or anions pull themselves along the magnetic field lines in respect to the sign following the curvature path of the field that curves back towards its opposite sign. In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2017 20:53:57
You are right of course I do not understand my own ideas (not).
That's a strawman. I explained what it was that you didn't understand.
You don't seem to have grasped how science works. All your batty ideas fail your own implicit test.

You said "First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation."
Now you have to accept that the same thing applies to all your ideas.

And this
"Likewise polarities are solid relative to each other."
 is meaningless.

I remind you that you said that nitrogen gas is a solid.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 15/11/2017 20:57:38
In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.
Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2017 21:03:30
You are right of course I do not understand my own ideas (not).
That's a strawman. I explained what it was that you didn't understand.
You don't seem to have grasped how science works. All your batty ideas fail your own implicit test.

You said "First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation."
Now you have to accept that the same thing applies to all your ideas.

And this
"Likewise polarities are solid relative to each other."
 is meaningless.

I remind you that you said that nitrogen gas is a solid.

I have already said early on this thread that this notion is at an early stage of development.   So obviously it is only subjective thinking at this time until I prove it or have better supporting evidence.

Quote
I remind you that you said that nitrogen gas is a solid.


It is relatively solid between two observers. I suppose as it is you I had better explain that the observers are nitrogen atoms/molecules.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2017 21:05:23
In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.
Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 15/11/2017 23:56:02
South magnetic pole at the top?

I believe so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bored Chemist.
So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 15/11/2017 23:58:20
So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?

I'm not particularly sure I understand that sentence. Are you trying to say that a north pole is the same as a positive charge?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 00:10:37
So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?

I'm not particularly sure I understand that sentence. Are you trying to say that a north pole is the same as a positive charge?
Nope I am asking is it possible that the north pole has no polarity but in some way by spin is polarised ?  Similar to ionisation.

added- Put another way, if we had a field that was a stable state and all points of the field were at relative rest in respect to each other, there would be no polarity?

added- Because in a spin cycle , in respect to two sides of a wheel, although the wheel is spinning only one way, relatively each side of the wheel is spinning opposite directions.   
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 00:27:32
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 16/11/2017 00:34:03
So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?

I'm not particularly sure I understand that sentence. Are you trying to say that a north pole is the same as a positive charge?
Nope I am asking is it possible that the north pole has no polarity but in some way by spin is polarised ?  Similar to ionisation.

added- Put another way, if we had a field that was a stable state and all points of the field were at relative rest in respect to each other, there would be no polarity?

added- Because in a spin cycle , in respect to two sides of a wheel, although the wheel is spinning only one way, relatively each side of the wheel is spinning opposite directions.   

If you start defining poles as having no polarity, you've pretty much created a contradiction. Motion is considered an important aspect of magnetism. In a reference frame where an electrically-charged object is moving (or spinning), an observer will observe a magnetic field. Relativity is actually pretty important in explaining the existence of magnetic fields: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0).
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 00:42:43
So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?

I'm not particularly sure I understand that sentence. Are you trying to say that a north pole is the same as a positive charge?
Nope I am asking is it possible that the north pole has no polarity but in some way by spin is polarised ?  Similar to ionisation.

added- Put another way, if we had a field that was a stable state and all points of the field were at relative rest in respect to each other, there would be no polarity?

added- Because in a spin cycle , in respect to two sides of a wheel, although the wheel is spinning only one way, relatively each side of the wheel is spinning opposite directions.   

If you start defining poles as having no polarity, you've pretty much created a contradiction. Motion is considered an important aspect of magnetism. In a reference frame where an electrically-charged object is moving (or spinning), an observer will observe a magnetic field. Relativity is actually pretty important in explaining the existence of magnetic fields: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0).
Hmm, before I watched your video link I had drawn this.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

I will watch the video a few more times then try to find some more questions . Thank you for the education.



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/11/2017 20:20:06
Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.
No.
The fruit cake thinks he has corrected time dilation and so on.
Nobody else thinks so.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/11/2017 20:21:38
South magnetic pole at the top?

I believe so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bored Chemist.
So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?
We know it isn't that, because that doesn't make any sense.
It's like saying "how do we know it is not a stable state field of Tuesday that had gone to bed with left handedness"
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 21:00:15
In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.
Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.
You have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 21:22:22
In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.
Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.
You have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums.
Really now, then you can challenge me on time and time dilation can you?  Please feel free to start a challenge thread
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 21:23:35
South magnetic pole at the top?

I believe so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bored Chemist.
So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?
We know it isn't that, because that doesn't make any sense.
It's like saying "how do we know it is not a stable state field of Tuesday that had gone to bed with left handedness"
You really h ave no thinking ability at all.   A calm lake is a stable state until the wind is applied. 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 21:30:14
In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.
Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.
You have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums.
Really now, then you can challenge me on time and time dilation can you?  Please feel free to start a challenge thread
The onus is on you to show your claim to be true.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 21:32:38
South magnetic pole at the top?

I believe so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bored Chemist.
So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?
We know it isn't that, because that doesn't make any sense.
It's like saying "how do we know it is not a stable state field of Tuesday that had gone to bed with left handedness"
You really h ave no thinking ability at all.   A calm lake is a stable state until the wind is applied. 
What about tidal forces or temperature related circulation?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 21:51:39
In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.
Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.
You have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums.
Really now, then you can challenge me on time and time dilation can you?  Please feel free to start a challenge thread
The onus is on you to show your claim to be true.
Already shown in my paper when I use time planck to show the illusion of length contraction.


* tp0.jpg (23.51 kB . 898x572 - viewed 2611 times)

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 21:58:13
How about the ''zig zag '' version

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 22:02:25
Like I said, you can't challenge me on time because I am the ''master'' on time and space and if Einstein was here today he would concede to me.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 16/11/2017 22:03:41
Like I said, you can't challenge me on time because I am the ''master'' on time and space and if Einstein was here today he would concede to me.

I wish this board had an appropriate emoticon to react to that statement with.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 22:04:40
Tesla thought something could not act on nothing and Einsteins space curvature was wrong.  Tesla thinking there was an electric universe.  Both were correct because none of them considered Q.F.S.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 22:06:38
Like I said, you can't challenge me on time because I am the ''master'' on time and space and if Einstein was here today he would concede to me.

I wish this board had an appropriate emoticon to react to that statement with.
Challenge this then?  I know I am right and it can't be challenged.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 16/11/2017 22:09:20
Challenge this then?  I know I am right and it can't be challenged.

I already did in another thread. I'm getting off of this crazy train.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 22:10:12
Challenge this then?  I know I am right and it can't be challenged.

I already did in another thread. I'm getting off of this crazy train.
Nobody as challenged my notions about time, in fact I have had agreement it is a timing dilation and not a time dilation.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 22:10:32
In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.
Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake
Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.
You have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums.
Really now, then you can challenge me on time and time dilation can you?  Please feel free to start a challenge thread
The onus is on you to show your claim to be true.
Already shown in my paper when I use time planck to show the illusion of length contraction.


* tp0.jpg (23.51 kB . 898x572 - viewed 2611 times)


Oh interesting. I wasnt aware you had had a paper published...
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 22:11:24
Challenge this then?  I know I am right and it can't be challenged.

I already did in another thread. I'm getting off of this crazy train.
Nobody as challenged my notions about time, in fact I have had agreement it is a timing dilation and not a time dilation.
From who? Some fellow crazy?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 22:13:10
Oh interesting. I wasnt aware you had had a paper published...
It is not published yet because I can't get any real help on it, it is also not finished because I have not finished doing gravity mechanism and other things. It is a huge paper when it is finished that well.....lets just say it is will be very controversial.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 22:15:47
Challenge this then?  I know I am right and it can't be challenged.

I already did in another thread. I'm getting off of this crazy train.
Nobody as challenged my notions about time, in fact I have had agreement it is a timing dilation and not a time dilation.
From who? Some fellow crazy?
Goc I think agreed with me and i think somebody else. I know I am right and I have been told to get my paper peer viewed by a science section in a top political forum.
They said thank you for sharing and they would look forward to seeing the finished article.

I am not crazy , I know I just know when I am 100% correct or not, 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 22:53:48
Oh interesting. I wasnt aware you had had a paper published...
It is not published yet because I can't get any real help on it, it is also not finished because I have not finished doing gravity mechanism and other things. It is a huge paper when it is finished that well.....lets just say it is will be very controversial.
So you havent written a paper.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 22:57:25
Challenge this then?  I know I am right and it can't be challenged.

I already did in another thread. I'm getting off of this crazy train.
Nobody as challenged my notions about time, in fact I have had agreement it is a timing dilation and not a time dilation.
From who? Some fellow crazy?
Goc I think agreed with me and i think somebody else. I know I am right and I have been told to get my paper peer viewed by a science section in a top political forum.
They said thank you for sharing and they would look forward to seeing the finished article.

I am not crazy , I know I just know when I am 100% correct or not, 
Yes of course you know you are correct. That is the problem. You evidence is' knowing' you are correct. So can you point to where people 'agreed' with you precisely?
interesting that you say a 'top political forum' agreed but cant tell us which one. Even if you did, do you really think a political forum is the best judge of whether a scientific paper should be published or not?  Why not ask actual scientists?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/11/2017 23:02:06
Challenge this then?  I know I am right and it can't be challenged.

I already did in another thread. I'm getting off of this crazy train.
Nobody as challenged my notions about time, in fact I have had agreement it is a timing dilation and not a time dilation.
From who? Some fellow crazy?
Goc I think agreed with me and i think somebody else. I know I am right and I have been told to get my paper peer viewed by a science section in a top political forum.
They said thank you for sharing and they would look forward to seeing the finished article.

I am not crazy , I know I just know when I am 100% correct or not, 
Yes of course you know you are correct. That is the problem. You evidence is' knowing' you are correct. So can you point to where people 'agreed' with you precisely?
interesting that you say a 'top political forum' agreed but cant tell us which one. Even if you did, do you really think a political forum is the best judge of whether a scientific paper should be published or not?  Why not ask actual scientists?
I have asked scientists, but who is a scientist on here? who can say they are qualified to peer view? 

See my paper I brought to the top. of section.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2018 05:25:54
TitleQuantum N-field theory .

Author - S.P. Leese

Abstract - This paper is a theory of an energy Matrix,  an energy matrix is used to describe the primary source of energy for a system.  This paper is intended to show how the energy of the Universe is formed and powers the Universe. .  Showing that this formation of energy is a construct of two parts. Neither part of the process having the mechanics  to  retain form, without the co-existence of their opposite sign.     A co-existence Matrix that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometrical point . A co-existence that also explains and answers the mechanics of the gravity process.  Proof's explained using two individual S-Matrices and a single co-existence Matrix. 


 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2018 06:15:11
I will just leave this here until I need it for thought.


* transpose 1.jpg (35.68 kB . 683x451 - viewed 2059 times)

:a<[m x m x m ]>→a<<[n x n x n]>>

T(a)=>a

:b<[m x m x m ]>→b<<[n x n x n]>>

T(b)=.>b


:ab<[m x m x m ]>→ab<<[m x m x m]>>

T(ab)=ab


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2018 10:47:17
TitleQuantum N-field theory .

SummaryExplaining Universal process with Matrices and completing Quantum mechanics.

Author - S.P. Leese

Abstract - This paper is a theory of an energy Matrix,  an energy matrix is used to describe the primary source of energy for a system.  This paper is intended to show how the energy of the Universe is formed and powers the Universe. .  Showing that this formation of energy is a construct of two parts. Neither part of the process having the mechanics  to  retain form, without the co-existence of the opposite sign.     A co-existence Matrix that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometrical point . A co-existence that also explains and answers the mechanics of the gravity process.  Proof's explained using two individual S-Matrices and a single co-existence Matrix.

Introduction.   

The intended reach of this paper is for the more open minded reader.  The aim of the paper is to show ostensible content and a paradox of present information.  Things that are ostensible are extremely difficult to show , things that appear to be true to most people will take some serious convincing the information is otherwise. 
In showing the ostensible content, I hope to also show gravity mechanism by the truer content I provide. The truer content having no ostensible, appearing to be true, because it is true and of axiom values.

Main text

Let us begin and for the  purposes of this discussion, be clear in our minds what I mean by a Matrix.   For the purpose of understanding, I define a Matrix as an invisible box that has X,Y and Z dimensions.  Within the 3-dimensional invisible box is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values, similar to, but not exactly like the classical "matrix".
 S-Matrix , presently defined as a scatter Matrix , again I define it slightly different in that I will define it a spread Matrix, meaning expansion. Also consider that this is not a maths matrix, it is a schematic Matrix with explanation and directional prompts.
In the Matrix arrangements, I will represent actions with symbols, a sort of symbolic language that represents the physics involved . cause and affect.   To help clarify what the symbolic language means, I will now define the symbol use and sentencing structure.

Expansion = ←→

Contraction = →←

change = Δ

function = 

Vector direction =  →

Vector direction = ←


S-matrix E1pos = [a]

S-matrix E2neg  = b]

Co-existence Matrix E1pos+E2neg=[ab]

E1pos  = energy field mono pole positive sign

E1neg  = energy field mono pole negative sign

xyz = dimensions

In example sentence structure   ←→a=a    which means the expansion of a is because of a

←→b=b

→←a=b

→←b=a





Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 12/02/2018 20:54:29
I feel like I am working hard to improve, how the hell do I get people to comment?   I am guessing without confirmation or correction.

Does this say it all ?

In example sentence structure   ←→a=a    which means the expansion of a is because of a

←→b=b  which means the expansion of b is because of b


→←a=b  which means the contraction of a is because of b


→←b=a which means the contraction of b is because of a


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 13/02/2018 12:06:14
S-matrix E1pos = a/k

S-matrix E2neg  = b/k

super co-exist matrix  =  a+b/k

????????????????????

S-matrix E1pos λE = a/k


S-matrix E2neg  λE = a+b/k

Super matrix field particle  =  a+b






Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 12:32:50
Mods please tell me if this correct, I think it is correct to what I have self learnt off google.

:a<[m x m x m ]>→a<<[n x n x n]>>

T(a)=>a

:b<[m x m x m ]>→b<<[n x n x n]>>

T(b)=.>b


:ab<[m x m x m ]>→ab<<[m x m x m]>>

T(ab)=ab

T = transformation


A    m * n  matrix , m would be a dimension  and n would be any dimension?

So m*m*m would be a 3*3*3 matrix with dimensions?



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 14:06:39
how the hell do I get people to comment?   I
Say something comprehensible.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 18:11:52
how the hell do I get people to comment?   I
Say something comprehensible.
Your so full of beans, I think though I am giving up anyway, science is full of rudeness and ignorance and arrogance.  When I first started learning science I expected much better, but now to be honest , I just see mostly fools like yourself, one of gods army, trolls. 

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2018 18:52:34
Your so full of beans, I think though I am giving up anyway, science is full of rudeness and ignorance and arrogance. 
Do you have a mirror handy?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 15/02/2018 10:29:53
Your so full of beans, I think though I am giving up anyway, science is full of rudeness and ignorance and arrogance. 
Do you have a mirror handy?

It is not a choice by me to be arrogant, it is a forced discipline because people would always talk rather than listen........meaning it does not matter what the idea is, the defence only put up a defence and cannot falsify the prosecution.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 15/02/2018 10:32:21
An electron cannot exist without a Proton

Evidence -  Exhibit 1-a  ,    Coulombs laws of likewise polarities repulse.

Evidence - Exhibit 1-b          ab +  (-a)   = (-b)

Evidence - Exhibit 1-c           a  +  (-a)  =  0

Evidence - Exhibit 1-d        b  +  (-b)  = 0

Evidence - Exhibit 1-e       a  +  b  = ab

Evidence - Exhibit 1-f       (ab)  +  (-a)   =   (b)  =  (-b)  = 0  □











Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2018 19:32:48
people would always talk rather than listen
Do you have a mirror handy?
Evidence - Exhibit 1-e       a  +  b  = ab
Care to guess again?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 15/02/2018 21:20:22
people would always talk rather than listen
Do you have a mirror handy?
Evidence - Exhibit 1-e       a  +  b  = ab
Care to guess again?
Math is not a guess .......
but i guess i missed out time 

(a  +  b) / t   = ab
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 15/02/2018 23:46:48
Math is not a guess .......

It's possible to get math wrong, though. For example, "ab" is shorthand for "a multiplied by b" and is not equivalent to "a + b" (unless both a and b are equal to 2).
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/02/2018 00:20:27
Math is not a guess .......

It's possible to get math wrong, though. For example, "ab" is shorthand for "a multiplied by b" and is not equivalent to "a + b" (unless both a and b are equal to 2).
Ok ty, note taken.  I should of kept to a.b    but I am going to change it again and try

a={i}

b = [j]

a  +  b  =  [i} + [j]  =  c

+  (-i) = 0
b  +  (-j) = 0
a i +  b j = ci,j = 1

????????????

You can work out i and j are 0.5
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/02/2018 00:47:54
a i +  b j = ci,j = 1

Maybe I should put  (a i b j )/t = c i,j = 1
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/02/2018 02:20:30
Title -  Quantum N-field theory .

Author - S.P. Leese

Abstract - This paper is a theory of an energy Matrix,  an energy matrix is used to describe the primary source of energy for a system.  This paper is intended to show how the energy of the Universe is formed and powers the Universe. .  Showing that this formation of energy is a construct of two parts. Neither part of the process having the mechanics  to  retain form, without the co-existence of their opposite sign.     A co-existence Matrix that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometrical point . A co-existence that also explains and answers the mechanics of the gravity process and contests the present atomic model by creating a paradox.   Proof's given in the form of three matrices and the corresponding equations.

Introduction.   

The aim of this  paper is to show ostensible content and a paradox of present information.  Things that are ostensible are extremely difficult to show , things that appear to be true to most people will take some serious convincing the information is otherwise. 
In showing the ostensible content, I hope to also show gravity mechanism by the ''truer'' content I provide. The ''truer'' content having no ostensible, appearing to be true, because it is true and of axiom values.

Main text

Let us begin and for the  purposes of this discussion, be clear in our minds what I mean by a Matrix.   For the purpose of understanding, I define a Matrix as an invisible box that has  X,Y and Z dimensions.  Within the 3-dimensional invisible box is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values and/or elements.  In my presentation I will present three individual 1*1*1 matrices labelled a,b and c.  Within  matrices a and b will be two individual integer elements i and j ,  let a = i and let b = j.   In matrix c there will be merged integer elements i and j,  let c = a + b = ci,j.
Last but not least,  let i = positive polarity and let j = negative polarity .

 My first question is , can i exist in a  single matrix a?  Now quite clearly all the coordinate points of  Matrix a,  would be repulsive points to all other points of the same matrix a.   By the laws of Physics and Coulomb's laws ,   matrix  a should always be in a state of expansion.
 Matrix a would have no strong nuclear force or gravity.   All the force would be ''centrifugal'' (outwards from a central point) , leaving a central void.

Which brings me to my first equation and diagram:


* i matrix.jpg (11.05 kB . 731x461 - viewed 1706 times)

 a  +  (-i)  =  0    representing the inverse of i,   resulting in the loss of i .

The result , a  newly transformed matrix a = 0 or an empty matrix.


* a=0 matrix.jpg (10.45 kB . 731x461 - viewed 1709 times)



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/02/2018 03:01:12
Main text continued.

 Ladies and gentlemen , ai shows us that i can not exist in a single matrix a.  One must assume a b .

The equation for b is:

b +  (-j) =  0 

Showing that

b ≡ j  ∴   (a + (-i))+(b + (-j)) = (a+b)+(-i,-j)=0  ∴   (a + (i/t)) + (b + (j/t)) = ci,j/t=1□

p.s that did hurt my brain,.....

added

a= i / k

b = j / k

c = i + j = 1

λE1 = i / k

λE2 = j / k

λE1  + λE2  =  1  = (E = mc)?????







Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/02/2018 16:33:16
I am dying to know but the teachers are saying little, is my math improving?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2018 18:38:39
I am dying to know but the teachers are saying little, is my math improving?
We can only be teachers if you learn...
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 16/02/2018 20:29:39
I am dying to know but the teachers are saying little, is my math improving?
We can only be teachers if you learn...
But what I learn needs to be tested and ''ticked'' or corrected.

I think my latest math using i and j is correct?

a +  (-i)  = 0 

Originally I put a  +  (-a)  = 0 

but I am not taking away a, I am taking away the integer of a which is i. 

Is this equation representative of the inverse?  I read put this way it was. 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 00:48:40
I think my latest math using i and j is correct?
Since you have yet to properly define any of the things you are talking about it is impossible to say (usually) if you are right or wrong.
We can only comment on blatant contradictions.
When I did so you said I was wrong, but posted word salad as a "reason".

There's no way anyone can really "teach" in those conditions.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 02:03:24
I think my latest math using i and j is correct?
Since you have yet to properly define any of the things you are talking about it is impossible to say (usually) if you are right or wrong.
We can only comment on blatant contradictions.
When I did so you said I was wrong, but posted word salad as a "reason".

There's no way anyone can really "teach" in those conditions.
Ok, point taken, but I have no idea why you say I have not defined  things. I think I define it well?

Main text

Let us begin and for the  purposes of this discussion, be clear in our minds what I mean by a Matrix.   For the purpose of understanding, I define a Matrix as an invisible box that has  X,Y and Z dimensions.  Within the 3-dimensional invisible box is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values and/or elements.  In my presentation I will present three individual 1*1*1 matrices labelled a,b and c.  Within  matrices a and b will be two individual integer elements i and j ,  let a = i and let b = j.   In matrix c there will be merged integer elements i and j,  let c = a + b = ci,j.
Last but not least,  let i = positive polarity and let j = negative polarity .

What is wrong with that ? 

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 11:44:15
You have not, for example defined what you mean here
" the integer of a which is i. "
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 11:48:15
You have not, for example defined what you mean here
" the integer of a which is i. "
I did, I said it was a positive mono-pole integer, integer does mean interior?

Can't I put half integer because I need 0.5 ?

Because in this matrix 1 positive charge = half a Neutral charge.

I can't put 1 + 1 because that would be two, I Need 1 + 1 = 1

So 0.5 is one but half see

added- Could I put something like   i =1 = 0.5i,j   

i + j = 1
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 12:06:52
said it was a positive mono-pole integer, integer does mean interior?
You now need to say what you mean by " positive mono-pole integer"
And, re. "integer does mean interior?".
No, an integer is a whole number with no fractions or decimals.
That's part of the problem with your foolish refusal to start by learning the basics.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 13:07:40
said it was a positive mono-pole integer, integer does mean interior?
You now need to say what you mean by " positive mono-pole integer"
And, re. "integer does mean interior?".
No, an integer is a whole number with no fractions or decimals.
That's part of the problem with your foolish refusal to start by learning the basics.
There is no refusal, a whole number is a ''volume'' in a matrix, the interior, I know a whole number is an integer.

I thought a mono-pole positive would be self explanatory, I will just say an electron or Proton if it helps?


The obvious problem is will people understand i = 1 and j = 1,    i+j = i,j=1

You are good at chemistry, how would you explain two individual substances merging to become 1?

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 13:11:33
OK, so now you need to explain what you think this means.
a ''volume'' in a matrix, the interior

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 13:13:49
OK, so now you need to explain what you think this means.
a ''volume'' in a matrix, the interior


It means to me, the interior of the defined parameters of the matrix , i.e 1*1*1 or m*m*m  or m*n or n*n etc.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 15:13:05
OK, so now you need to explain what you think this means.
the interior of the defined parameters of the matrix
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 17:13:14
OK, so now you need to explain what you think this means.
the interior of the defined parameters of the matrix

lol are you joking?  The parameters of the Matrix are the boundary and within that  boundary. Defined often by numbers.

So if I define the boundary parameter as  1*1*1  and the interior parameter as 1,    I think you can work out that the 1 is 3 dimensional and fills the interior of the boundary parameter.  i.e a volume equal to real numbers R. 

ok?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 17:19:53
The parameters of the Matrix are the boundary and within that  boundary.
What boundary?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 17:22:17
The parameters of the Matrix are the boundary and within that  boundary.
What boundary?
The boundary defined by the Matrix's dimensions R = m * m * m = 1*1*1 for example
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 17:56:35
The boundary defined by the Matrix's dimensions R = m * m * m = 1*1*1 for example
That's nonsense because a matrix only has two dimensions.

And if you abandoned your policy of refusing to learn the basics, you might have known that and not wasted all this time.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 18:09:32
The boundary defined by the Matrix's dimensions R = m * m * m = 1*1*1 for example
That's nonsense because a matrix only has two dimensions.

And if you abandoned your policy of refusing to learn the basics, you might have known that and not wasted all this time.
Huh, a R  has two dimensions  x,y , a R has 3 dimensions  x,y,z

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 20:02:45
What do you think  R3 is?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 20:04:45
I can only keep improving ....

Title -  Quantum N-field theory .

Author - S.P. Leese

Abstract - This paper is a theory of a R real coordinate space  energy Matrix,  an energy matrix  used to describe the primary source of energy for a system.  This paper is intended to show how the energy of the Universe is formed and powers the Universe. .  Showing that this formation of energy is a construct of two parts. Neither part of the process having the mechanics  to  retain form without the co-existence of their opposite sign.     A co-existence Matrix that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometrical point . A co-existence that also explains and answers the mechanics of the gravity process  returning the conclusion of that neutral is attracted to neutral .  This paper also contests the present atomic model by creating a paradox(s).   Proof's given in the form of three matrices with the corresponding equations.

Introduction.  

The aim of this  paper is to show ostensible content and a paradox of present information.  Things that are ostensible are extremely difficult to show , things that appear to be true to most people will take some serious convincing the information is otherwise. 
In showing the ostensible content, I hope to also show gravity mechanism by the ''truer'' content I provide. The ''truer'' content having no ostensible, appearing to be true, because it is true and of axiom values.

Main text

Let us begin and for the  purposes of this discussion, be clear in our minds what I mean by a  R real coordinate space Matrix.   For the purpose of understanding, I define the Matrix as a real volume of space  that has  X,Y and Z dimensions.  Within the 3-dimensional defined boundary is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values and/or elements.  In my presentation I will present three individual 1*1*1 matrices labelled a,b and c.  Within  matrix a and b will be two individual integer elements i and j ,  let a = i and let b = j.   In matrix c there will be merged elements i and j,  let c = a + b = ci,j.
Last but not least let i = postive polarity and let j = negative polarity .

 My first question is , can i exist in a  single matrix a?  Now quite clearly all the coordinate points of  Matrix a,  would be repulsive points to all other points of the same Matrix a.   By the laws of Physics and Coulomb's laws ,   Matrix  a should always be in a state of expansion.
 Matrix a would have no strong nuclear force or gravity.   All the force would be ''centrifugal'' (outwards from a central point) , leaving a central void.

Which brings me to my first equation : 

a = {i}

i = 1

a + (-i) = 0 


Now ladies and gentlemen, the above equation quite clearly shows that Matrix a,  cannot retain form  and will ''disperse'' directly proportionally to the inverse on any attempt to create the Matrix.  Thus creating a Paradox of the existence of a Proton as presented in the present model.
How can a Proton Matrix exist when all the points of the Matrix would be likewise in polarity throughout the Matrix?

This leads us to our next equation and a look at  Matrix b, one must assume  a ⇔ b .


b = [j]

j = 1

b + (-j)  = 0

Now ladies and gentlemen, the above equation quite clearly shows that Matrix b, also cannot retain form and will ''disperse'' directly proportionally to the inverse.   Therefore any attempt to create matrix b, will also result in failure.  This creating our second Paradox, how can an electron Matrix exist when all the points of the Matrix are likewise in polarity throughout the matrix?

Let us now enter Matrix c into the discussion and the following equation


(a+b) = c

(i + j) =  1

Now ladies and gentlemen you may already 'see' an error in my equation, an ''error'' that is intentional that will allow me to explain.

I already stated that i = 1 and j = 1, so the summation of i + j should equal 2 and not (i + j ) = 1 that I previosly stated.   However this is a special case where

i = 0.5i,j  and j = 0.5 i,j  therefore    (a + b ) =  (i + j) = (1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5)=(ci,j)=1


 Now ladies and gentlemen, Matrix c can be created and does retain form because opposites attract, this allows the Matrix to have Physicality  that Paradox's  the existing atomic model.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 20:05:05
What do you think  R3 is?
Real coordinate space.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 21:21:20
OK, and why do you think it's a matrix?
(Spoiler alert- it isn't)
Each point (or set of points in) it in it can be labelled with a matrix. That matrix has 2 dimensions- columns and rows.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 21:59:23

Each point (or set of points in) it in it can be labelled with a matrix. That matrix has 2 dimensions- columns and rows.

That is a bit un-advanced.  Does it really matter as long as I explain the context of use?

Why can't we have a 3 dimensional matrix?

I understand what you are saying but 3d is doable.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2018 22:43:18
Why can't we have a 3 dimensional matrix?
Because it's not a matrix- for example, the rukes of matrix multiplication couldn't be applied to it.

Does it really matter as long as I explain the context of use?
You have barely explained anything yet.
I understand what you are saying but 3d is doable
Quite possibly, but since the maths for it is, as yet, undefined, you can't reasonably say that you have done anything yet.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 17/02/2018 23:29:36
Why can't we have a 3 dimensional matrix?
Because it's not a matrix- for example, the rukes of matrix multiplication couldn't be applied to it.

Does it really matter as long as I explain the context of use?
You have barely explained anything yet.
I understand what you are saying but 3d is doable
Quite possibly, but since the maths for it is, as yet, undefined, you can't reasonably say that you have done anything yet.

pfffff, its hard to please.     Ok I will re-word yet again and change everything to suit .  I will use a R coordinate space  and define the space to have an inner array .

It hardly matters the outcome is the same and neutral will always be attracted to neutral.   I have given science the information, they should be able do the rest, can' t I just be excused ?

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 10:00:55
define the space to have an inner array
You will need to explain that.
I have given science the information,
You have given nothing but nonsense.
neutral will always be attracted to neutral.
And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 14:21:19
define the space to have an inner array
You will need to explain that.
I have given science the information,
You have given nothing but nonsense.
neutral will always be attracted to neutral.
And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.
Now I am sure you are just trolling, go find somebody else speak too, you can go be bored elsewhere.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 14:47:51
neutral will always be attracted to neutral.
And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.
And they bounce of each other because Neutral pushes back as in Newtons third law, don't you know anything Mr Chemist?

The forces involved in my merged  i,j ''matrix''

i →F ← j

j→F←i

i←F→i

j←F→J

Now do the maths Mr Chemist lets go get our noble prize .  you know the idea and you are not stupid, I bet you could do my maths I need in minutes?


Explain

[i,j]→g←[i,j]

[i,j] ←F→[i,j] pushes back

G= (i,j)(i,j)/r
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 15:00:03

* model g.jpg (12.97 kB . 731x461 - viewed 1741 times)

i and j are mass-less unless co-efficient. (factor that measures a particular property.)
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 17:37:56
@ Mr Chemist

Edit for your peer please.

Title -  Quantum N-field theory .

Author - S.P. Leese

Abstract - This paper is a theory of a R real coordinate space  energy ''Matrix'', similar to, but not exactly like the classical "matrix".   An energy matrix  used to describe the primary source of energy for a system.  This paper is intended to show how the energy of the Universe is formed and powers the Universe. .  Showing that this formation of energy is a construct of two parts. Neither part of the process having the mechanics  to  retain form without the co-existence of their opposite sign.     A co-existence Matrix that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometrical point . A co-existence that also explains and answers the mechanics of the gravity process  explaining the conclusion of that neutral is attracted to neutral .  This paper also contests the present atomic model by creating a paradox(s).   Proof's given in the form of three ''matrices'' and thought with the corresponding equations.

Introduction. 

The aim of this  paper is to show ostensible content and a paradox of present information.  Things that are ostensible are extremely difficult to show , things that appear to be true to most people will take some serious convincing the information is otherwise. 
In showing the ostensible content, I hope to also show gravity mechanism by the ''truer'' content I provide. The ''truer'' content having no ostensible, appearing to be true, because it is true and of axiom values.

Main text

Let us begin and for the  purposes of this discussion, be clear in our minds what I mean by a  R real coordinate space Matrix. similar to, but not exactly like the classical "matrix.    For the purpose of understanding, I define the Matrix as a real volume of space  that has  X,Y and Z dimensions.  Within the 3-dimensional defined boundary is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values and/or elements.  In my presentation I will present three individual 1 matrices labelled a,b and c.  Within  matrices a and b will be two individual integer elements i and j ,  let a = i and let b = j.


* a and b.jpg (18.26 kB . 731x461 - viewed 1726 times)

 In matrix c there will be merged elements i and j,  let c = a + b = ci,j.

* i and j.jpg (17.12 kB . 731x461 - viewed 1725 times)

Last but not least let's assign that  i = positive mono-pole and let's assign j = negative mono-pole and both i and j have physicality.

 My first question is , can i exist in a  single matrix a?  Now quite clearly all the coordinate points of  Matrix a,  would be repulsive points to all other points of the same Matrix a.   By the laws of Physics and Coulomb's laws ,   Matrix  a should always be in a state of expansion.

Citation : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law

Quote
Coulomb's law states that: The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them.



 Matrix a would have no strong nuclear force or gravity.   All the force would be ''centrifugal'' (outwards from a central point) , leaving a central void.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 17:55:18
And they bounce of each other because Neutral pushes back as in Newtons third law, don't you know anything Mr Chemist?
Among the quite large number of things I know is that , in the limit, what causes them to bounce is Pauli pressure and there's no way Newton would have known about that.

The forces involved in my merged  i,j ''matrix''

i →F ← j

j→F←i

i←F→i

j←F→J

Still gibberish.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 18:11:10
And they bounce of each other because Neutral pushes back as in Newtons third law, don't you know anything Mr Chemist?
Among the quite large number of things I know is that , in the limit, what causes them to bounce is Pauli pressure and there's no way Newton would have known about that.

The forces involved in my merged  i,j ''matrix''

i →F ← j

j→F←i

i←F→i

j←F→J

Still gibberish.

read my edit bruva....
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/02/2018 18:14:11
read my edit bruva....
Practically none of it makes sense
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 18:19:23
read my edit bruva....
Practically none of it makes sense
Well that is strange because I can read English and I know I have explained it in very simple English and used clear context and definition.  Are you saying you have a learning disorder and cannot understand the explanation of a definition being used for the purpose of the discussion?



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 18:22:43
Have I got to remind you

Quote
Coulomb's law states that: The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction or repulsion between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 18:27:57
:Δx = F1

R=F1

So stop pretending you do not understand. 

The map is : a = 0→n
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/02/2018 23:44:10
@ Mr Chemist , how does this read?

A proposal for consideration of a N-field quantum theory.

- S.P. Leese, (credentials : Approximately 10 years of experience on science forums)
Spring 2018



Abstract:

This paper  proposes a theory of a R real coordinate space-energy ''matrix'', similar to, but not exactly like the classical "matrix"., that may   describe the primary source of energy for a given system.    First will be shown is that  the formation of energy is a two part construct , with either part of the processing ,  the mechanics failing to retain form without the co-existence of the opposite sign.  Second,  a co-existence matrix shall be established that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometric point.   Additionally, such co-existence that may also explain and answer  a normalising that is , neutral being attracted to neutral, phenomenon of the gravity process.

Definitions and axiomatic information:

Before any discussion can meaningfully continue several contextual definitions must be accepted.  A R real coordinate space-energy matrix'' shall be defined as an Euclidean volume of space.   Within  this matrix is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values, and/or elements. 
Finally let i = a mono pole positive polarity 1.60217733(49)E-19 C  and let j = a mono pole negative polarity equal to 1.6021765 10−19 coulomb

Queries

As defined,  is the following possible?

i ∈ [a]

Could i exist individually?

Would all the individual points of i be repulsive to all other points of i?

Would i be in an automatic state of expansion? 

As defined,  is the following possible?

j ∈ [a]

Could j exist individually?

Would all the individual points of j be repulsive to all other points of j?

Would j be in an automatic state of expansion? 

I propose that both i and j could not exist as a thing with distinct and independent existence. By the laws of Physics and Coulomb's laws,  it is quite clear that all individual points of i would be repulsive to all individual points of i, all individual points of j would be repulsive to all individual points of j. In a state of individual existence, both i and j would most certainly be in an immediate state of expansion.

to be continued.......
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 13:46:48
Still , do not understand?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2018 19:31:44
define the space to have an inner array
You will need to explain that.
I have given science the information,
You have given nothing but nonsense.
neutral will always be attracted to neutral.
And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.
Now I am sure you are just trolling, go find somebody else speak too, you can go be bored elsewhere.


It's not that I have a learning disorder.
The problem is your persistent refusal to explain what  you are using words to mean.
If you stuck to the conventional uses of the words, you wouldn't need to explain them but you keep making up more dross with every post.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/02/2018 20:28:26
define the space to have an inner array
You will need to explain that.
I have given science the information,
You have given nothing but nonsense.
neutral will always be attracted to neutral.
And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.
Now I am sure you are just trolling, go find somebody else speak too, you can go be bored elsewhere.


It's not that I have a learning disorder.
The problem is your persistent refusal to explain what  you are using words to mean.
If you stuck to the conventional uses of the words, you wouldn't need to explain them but you keep making up more dross with every post.
And comments on the latest edited post?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2018 22:01:36
And comments on the latest edited post?
None of what you have posted since I first wrote that makes much sense.
All you seem to be able to do is throw in insults and more buzzwords.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 00:40:39
And comments on the latest edited post?
None of what you have posted since I first wrote that makes much sense.
All you seem to be able to do is throw in insults and more buzzwords.

You are really going to claim that you did not understand my last theory post edit ?             

Would you like me to explain with three individual n-spheres instead?   or even a n-cube?

  A n-dimensional manifold that can be embedded in Euclidean (n + 1)-space.

Can two opposite polarity,  equal dimension n-spheres occupy the same Euclidean space?



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: alancalverd on 21/02/2018 08:49:20
Since your nomenclature is inconsistent throughout the posting, it would be dishonest for anyone to claim to understand it.

I regularly cross swords with BC, but he is always honest.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 13:46:49
nomenclature
I tell you what, forget everything I wrote and concentrate on this one sentence.


Neutral is attracted to neutral..


Now which part do you not understand?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 15:42:16
I can now confirm the paper on the N-field showing various things including gravity mechanism is now being co-wrote.  I have been engaged in conversation through emails with this individual and he has agreed to be co-writer of the paper.   

Stay tuned.....The paper update and edit will be available soon.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 19:45:17
Neutral is attracted to neutral..


Now which part do you not understand?
I don't understand why this is worth posting  many years after it was already established.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force

I also don't understand what the connection is between the pages of dross you posted, and a real thing.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 19:51:13
Neutral is attracted to neutral..


Now which part do you not understand?
I don't understand why this is worth posting  many years after it was already established.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_dispersion_force

I also don't understand what the connection is between the pages of dross you posted, and a real thing.
First, your link is nothing like my notion.   Second, the real thing is atoms ,

What is a N-field particle?

An N-field particle is when two individual opposite  polarity fields simulataneously combine, at the same geometric point,  to form a single neutral field particle,  that has quantum physicality due to the mechanics involved.


What is a n-field?

A n-field is  a neutral field expanding isotropic from the N-field particle,   inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source.


There you go.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: alancalverd on 21/02/2018 20:05:11
Methinks the lad hath discovered gravitation.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 20:08:50
An N-field particle is when two individual opposite  polarity fields simulataneously combine, at the same geometric point,  to form a single neutral field particle,  that has quantum physicality due to the mechanics involved.

Word salad.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 20:10:38
Methinks the lad hath discovered gravitation.
It could be, but he keeps wittering on about polarity and that doesn't sit well with gravity (which is always attractive).
It hardly matters- there are at least two mechanisms that are well defined which model the way in which neutral things attract eachother. so it's not as if he's adding anything.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 20:34:48
Methinks the lad hath discovered gravitation.
It could be, but he keeps wittering on about polarity and that doesn't sit well with gravity (which is always attractive).
It hardly matters- there are at least two mechanisms that are well defined which model the way in which neutral things attract eachother. so it's not as if he's adding anything.

Gravity is attractive and the repulsion involved is the physicality of objects, the likewise pushes back. 

Imagine a line that was a monopole


........................................................

Try to squeeze this line what happens?

It pushes back

force vectors

←→
F  F

Mr Newtons apple fell to the ground because the negative atomic charge and positive atomic charge of the apple are attracted to their opposites in the ground.
The reason the apple does not fall through the ground is because the negative atomic charge and the positive atomic charge of the ground repulses the likewise atomic charge of the apple..

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 20:38:10
Methinks the lad hath discovered gravitation.
Thanks Alan, but I consider what the forums have taught me over the years is what has, maybe discovered gravity, I consider everyone deserves a pat on the back.   
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 21:03:31
so it's not as if he's adding anything.
It adds an answer to what gravity is, regardless of any other model , my model describes gravity .   Not to mention the rudiment of energy for any given system, I have not even gone into the n-field yet of discussed n-wave or perturbations of the N-field and n-field being photons.
There is much to discuss , time does not wait for anybody.

Give me some credit MR C, for an amateur , not a bad result and conclusion in only several years of learning.





Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 21:45:19
For anybody who may not yet understand any of this,

A Neutral object will attract both a negative charge and a positive charge.   All objects have the properties have a negative and positive atomic charge. The properties equate to neutral, so simply neutral is attracted to neutral and that is the mechanics of gravity. 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 21:47:34
the repulsion involved is the physicality of objects, the likewise pushes back. 
More word salad
Imagine a line that was a monopole
Make up your mind,
Monopoles are points, so they are not lines.

and so on...
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 21:51:35
the repulsion involved is the physicality of objects, the likewise pushes back. 
More word salad
Imagine a line that was a monopole
Make up your mind,
Monopoles are points, so they are not lines.

and so on...
I though mono-pole described a single polarity with no mention of dimension?

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 21:55:09
So Mr C, in a Cartesian R space you would understand 2 opposite mono-poles occupying the same geometric point?

You would equate a value of N wouldn't you?

If we give the individual mono-poles elements a value of i and j , i + j = N ?


Any other elements of i or j in the R space would be automatically attracted to this geometric point would they not?



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 22:02:33
You would equate a value of N wouldn't you?
What the F*** is N?
2 opposite mono-poles occupying the same geometric point?
No.
Stop trying to do magic.

You also forgot to say what i and j are.

Why don't you try reading stuff before you post it, and asking yourself "have I actually defined all the terms I'm using here?"
Because, when you don't define them you are posting nonsense.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 22:08:27
You would equate a value of N wouldn't you?
What the F*** is N?
2 opposite mono-poles occupying the same geometric point?
No.
Stop trying to do magic.

You also forgot to say what i and j are.

Why don't you try reading stuff before you post it, and asking yourself "have I actually defined all the terms I'm using here?"
Because, when you don't define them you are posting nonsense.
N is obviously neutral Mr C, you have been discussing this long enough now too know the N-field is a neutral field.

I already defined i and j to be opposite mono poles. I guessed you missed that because I put

If we give the individual mono-poles elements a value of i and j , i + j = N ?

Instead of

If we give the individual opposite mono-poles elements a value of i and j , i + j = N ?

No magic , just physics.

e-  =  i

+1e  = j

That simple Mr C


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 22:13:33
And one must assume by the laws of physics that

Any other elements of i or j in the R space would be automatically attracted to this geometric point i,j.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2018 22:21:55
If we give the individual mono-poles elements a value of
Are you taking the piss?
This "value": is it age, cost, charge, mass, shoe size?


 
e-  =  i

+1e  = j

Now, all you need to do is define e (because I doubt you mean 2.7...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)


It hardly matters.
i + j = N
and
e-  =  i

+1e  = j

So i+j = e-e which is zero- whatever e might be
So N is always zero.
Which might tell us something except you ever explained what N was.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/02/2018 22:28:46
This "value": is it age, cost, charge, mass, shoe size?
The value is a dimension and existence Mr C.

-e is the sign for the electron Mr C,

+1e is the sign for the proton Mr C.

N is electrically neutral Mr C, it means you measure 0 charge , but you can still measure the force and it equates to G.

p.s it is  (e-)  +  (+1e) = 0 =N
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 00:38:50
My pre-edit


A proposal for consideration of a N-field quantum theory.

S.P. Leese, (  Approximately 10 years of experience on science forums)   
Spring 2018



Abstract:

This paper  proposes a theory of events  in a R real coordinate space that may   describe the primary source of energy for a given system.    First will be shown is that  the formation of energy is a two part construct , with either part of the processing ,  the mechanics failing to retain form without the co-existence of the counter part.    Second,  a co-existence  shall be established that is governed by simultaneous events at the same geometric point of the R coordinate space.   Additionally, such co-existence that may also explain and answer  a normalising that is , neutral being attracted to neutral, phenomenon of the gravity process.

Definitions and axiomatic information:

Before any discussion can meaningfully continue several contextual definitions must be accepted.  First : the R real coordinate space we shall define (a).
  Second : Within (a)  is a volume of geometric positional points.
 Third :  Each point having a value of 0 dimensions.
Forth: Each point  having the abilty to change in value at any random time.
Finally : Let us also define that the electron (e-) = i and the Proton (+1e)  = j .   

Query 1

As defined,  is the following possible?

  i   ∈   (a)

Could i have an independent and distinct existence?

Would all the individual points of i be repulsive to all other points of i?

Would i be in an automatic state of expansion? 


Query 2

As defined,  is the following possible?

j ∈  (a)

Could j have an independent and distinct existence?

Would all the individual points of j be repulsive to all other points of j?

Would j be in an automatic state of expansion? 


Query 3


As defined,  is the following possible?


i,j  ∈   (a)

Could i and j exist as a co-efficient?

Will i ''hold'' j in situate position?

Will j ''hold'' i in situate position?

Will i or j be in a state of expansion?



Propose:Query 1

  i could not have an independent and distinct existence
  Utilising Coulomb's law, all points of i would be repulsive to all other points of i.   .
  Utilising Coulomb's law,  i would be in an immediate state of expansion   
   
Propose: Query 2

  j could not have an independent and distinct existence
  Utilising Coulomb's law, all points of j would be repulsive to all other points of j.
  Utilising Coulomb's law,  j would be in an immediate state of expansion   .
   

Propose:Query 3

   i and j co-exist such that i sustains j, and j sustains i.
   utilising Coulombs Law, i and j occupy a single geometric location.
   An expansion would be evident to accommodate a single N-field element.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Colin2B on 22/02/2018 12:15:45
As defined,  is the following possible?

  i   ∈   (a)
This is possible if your definition of a includes some points being electrons

Currently all you have said is:
Second : Within (a)  is a volume of geometric positional points.
 Third :  Each point having a value of 0 dimensions.
To me, geometric positional points means coordinates, which would automatically have 0 dimensions.

Could i have an independent and distinct existence?
That depends on the properties of i.
Lets consider 4 ∈ {2, 4, 6, 8}
Clearly 4 exists as an item in its own right and isnt limited to this particular set. Obviously an electron can exist outside of a defined space eg a box (set)  ;), but if you are asking if an electron can exist outside spacetime, different question.

Would all the individual points of i be repulsive to all other points of i?
If all the points were electrons then yes

Would i be in an automatic state of expansion? 

Why would an individual i expand?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 12:22:17
Why would an individual i expand?
An individual i has dimensions, therefore has more than one point.

Would all the individual points of i be repulsive to all other points of i?
Quote
If all the points were electrons then yes

Quite clearly all points of i would be electron points of the electron, so quite clearly all the points would repulse causing immediate expansion of the points.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 12:25:23
but if you are asking if an electron can exist outside spacetime, different question.
Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 12:58:35
I have drawn a model and any attempt to create i results in 0 and expansion


* model i.jpg (34.63 kB . 731x461 - viewed 1571 times)

This expansion I will propose in more detail  my next paper , where I add N-waves and n-waves.   
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Colin2B on 22/02/2018 13:46:26
Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.
You need to caveat this statement with in the N Field new theory an electron cannot exist outside the atom.

The reason is that in current physics the electron has been observed outside the atom.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 13:56:54
The reason is that in current physics the electron has been observed outside the atom.
Ok, hmmmm, a momentary pause in theory and questions arise.

please define a mono-pole?

An electron would be a mono-pole or a volume of mono-poles?

Did ''you'' detect a mono-pole or mono-poles?

Or did you detect a n-wave?  (which is an annihilated electron)

p.s Please provide a link that shows an electrons independent existence outside of the atom!

added- Just to define, a charge mono-pole.

Quite clearly a charge mono-pole volume would self annihilate by  it's own mechanism of likewise force , turning the ''manifestation'' into wave energy , that ''dispersed'' inversely proportional to the square of the distance.   

If it does not, then there is something wrong with Coulombs law and it would be contradictory to the law of likewise polarity repulses.

All points of an electron R space, would be repulsive to all other points, making the possibility of a sustained volume, an impossibility.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: alancalverd on 22/02/2018 14:21:07
but if you are asking if an electron can exist outside spacetime, different question.
Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.

Bad idea. You are unlikely to arrive at a truth if you begin with a lie.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 14:32:25
but if you are asking if an electron can exist outside spacetime, different question.
Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.

Bad idea. You are unlikely to arrive at a truth if you begin with a lie.
Please provide a link for the electrons independent existence outside of the atom?  I cannot find one.


I am not lieing either, the physics tells us what is what, I do not make up the physics.

The simple question is , could you place a mono-pole next to a likewise mono-pole without it automatically displacing when  you let go?

The answer no, so how can you have an independent electron volume externally of the atom?

Added -  Unless you was to claim that electron points in our R space have opposite signs? 

In which I would ask for some sort of proofs of a Lepton.
 
If that were the case , then there could not be motion, the universe would be still because everything would be ''solid'' like and all would be repulsive.

Added - no, a big no, on the basis of a Lepton all electrons would be attracted to all electrons because my N-field theory would also work if I based it solely on the Lepton.

That is not evident, electrons repulse electrons so can not be i + j because they have no gravity.

Conclusion, no lepton, back to theory


propose

A lepton would have gravity if it had two opposite signs and attract other Leptons 

evidence

Repulsive force of likewise sets of points  , that may suggest an impossibility of a Lepton having opposite signs of points.

added- Let us look at two sets of leptons, (a) and (b) , each set is made up of elements i and j .

Now let us add the force vectors

(a)→←(b)

a is attracted to b and repulsed when the r=0.


So quite clearly (a) cannot have both  i + j

because adding the force vectors to Leptons

(a)←→(b)

a is repulsed by b and vice versus b is repulsed by a, quite clearly there is no gravity that should be there if the Lepton model was anywhere near accurate.

   





Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 15:34:02
Honestly who thinks up this stuff, they could not be more polar opposite to the correct answer if they tried.

Quote
The antiparticle of the electron is called the positron; it is identical to the electron except that it carries electrical and other charges of the opposite sign. When an electron collides with a positron, both particles can be totally annihilated, producing gamma ray photons.


The positron would pass right through the electron because there would be no repulsive force from any point of each ''binary'' set.

What do we call a set that is made up of an individual element?

Propose

When a Cation collides with an anion, E=mc and  both particles can be totally annihilated, producing n-wave photons

c0efbb5b854cd77c8e02a069d69d41b9.gif  inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source


A proposal that n-wave photons are perturbations in the n-field that cause the linearity of the n-field to wave.

For those who do not understand, have a friend hold one end of piece of string, you hold the other end and pull it tight, simply ''twang'' the string and watch the wave of the linearity.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 16:07:21
This might make you smile,

A simpleton walks into a bar  and ask's the bar tender a question about a singleton.

How could the contents in that glass exist  if the contents were all likewise singletons ? {0}   


Because all    a ∈ {a}

Because a set such as {{1, 2, 3}}    1=2=3

Because

Quote
In axiomatic set theory, the existence of singletons is a consequence of the axiom of pairing: for any set A, the axiom applied to A and A asserts the existence of {A, A}, which is the same as the singleton {A} (since it contains A, and no other set, as an element).

Quote
Axiomatic set theory[edit]
Elementary set theory can be studied informally and intuitively, and so can be taught in primary schools using Venn diagrams. The intuitive approach tacitly assumes that a set may be formed from the class of all objects satisfying any particular defining condition. This assumption gives rise to paradoxes, the simplest and best known of which are Russell's paradox and the Burali-Forti paradox. Axiomatic set theory was originally devised to rid set theory of such paradoxes.[5]

Quote
Many mathematical concepts can be defined precisely using only set theoretic concepts. For example, mathematical structures as diverse as graphs, manifolds, rings, and vector spaces can all be defined as sets satisfying various (axiomatic) properties. Equivalence and order relations are ubiquitous in mathematics, and the theory of mathematical relations can be described in set theory.

Set theory is also a promising foundational system for much of mathematics. Since the publication of the first volume of Principia Mathematica, it has been claimed that most or even all mathematical theorems can be derived using an aptly designed set of axioms for set theory, augmented with many definitions, using first or second order logic. For example, properties of the natural and real numbers can be derived within set theory, as each number system can be identified with a set of equivalence classes under a suitable equivalence relation whose field is some infinite set.

Set theory as a foundation for mathematical analysis, topology, abstract algebra, and discrete mathematics is likewise uncontroversial; mathematicians accept that (in principle) theorems in these areas can be derived from the relevant definitions and the axioms of set theory. Few full derivations of complex mathematical theorems from set theory have been formally verified, however, because such formal derivations are often much longer than the natural language proofs mathematicians commonly present. One verification project, Metamath, includes human-written, computer‐verified derivations of more than 12,000 theorems starting from ZFC set theory, first order logic and propositional logic.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 16:25:20
More philosophy, how could humans exist if we were all likewise ''singletons''?

Maybe this question applies Universally , a bit like how can a chicken exist without an egg, and how can the egg exist without the chicken?

How can rain exist without water?  How can ice exist without water?

How can anything exist without something else?

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: alancalverd on 22/02/2018 16:46:27
Please provide a link for the electrons independent existence outside of the atom?  I cannot find one.
You are looking at one right now. Or you would be if your computer had an oldfashioned CRT display. Maybe you have a valve radio, an old guitar amplifier, or a microwave cooker? Pop in to any hospital and look at their xray machines - free electrons whizzing around and crashing into things is how we generate x-rays. Or a factory with electron beam welding.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 16:55:54
Please provide a link for the electrons independent existence outside of the atom?  I cannot find one.
You are looking at one right now. Or you would be if your computer had an oldfashioned CRT display. Maybe you have a valve radio, an old guitar amplifier, or a microwave cooker? Pop in to any hospital and look at their xray machines - free electrons whizzing around and crashing into things is how we generate x-rays. Or a factory with electron beam welding.
How do I know I am not looking at anions?

How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2018 19:20:39
This "value": is it age, cost, charge, mass, shoe size?
The value is a dimension and existence Mr C.

-e is the sign for the electron Mr C,

+1e is the sign for the proton Mr C.

N is electrically neutral Mr C, it means you measure 0 charge , but you can still measure the force and it equates to G.

p.s it is  (e-)  +  (+1e) = 0 =N

Have you spent nine pages telling us that  objects with the same number of positive and negative charges have no overall charge?

Was there anyone who didn't already know that?
Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.

The correct answer is yes.
And, in spite of what Colin2B says, there is not scientific theory which lets you get away from that, because it's aan empirically observed fact.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2018 19:25:07
How do I know I am not looking at anions?
Because the mass to charge ratio is wrong.
How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?
It's kind of meaningless to base something on not seeing the annihilation of things when there's no reason to suppose they would be annihilated.
I am not lieing either, the physics tells us what is what,

Physics tells us about free electrons in a number of circumstances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube

And, as usual, your refusal to start by learning stuff makes you look silly.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 20:28:43
How do I know I am not looking at anions?
Because the mass to charge ratio is wrong.
How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?
It's kind of meaningless to base something on not seeing the annihilation of things when there's no reason to suppose they would be annihilated.
I am not lieing either, the physics tells us what is what,

Physics tells us about free electrons in a number of circumstances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube

And, as usual, your refusal to start by learning stuff makes you look silly.
Well regardless of a few hiccups in my N-field theory, it does not change the maybe fact, that I have answered what the gravity mechanism is.

That theory is short and sweet

Gravity mechanism

S.P.Leese
Spring 2018


Abstract - This paper explains gravity mechanism

Propose - Neutral is attracted to Neutral

Citation - Coulombs law

a+b  ∈ {n} 

a is attracted to b

b is attracted to a

therefore a+b is attracted to a+b


The end....
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 20:31:26
When a Cation collides with an anion, E=mc and  both particles can be totally annihilated, producing n-wave photons

If that was true, then table salt would explode.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 20:33:48
When a Cation collides with an anion, E=mc and  both particles can be totally annihilated, producing n-wave photons

If that was true, then table salt would explode.
I do not think we could collide table salt at c.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 20:36:15
I do not think we could collide table salt at c.

You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 20:39:37
I do not think we could collide table salt at c.

You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.
Of course mass can not travel at c, but mass can travel at 0.5c, two objects colliding at 0.5c is a ''crash'' at c.   F
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 20:42:22
I do not think we could collide table salt at c.

You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.
Of course mass can not travel at c, but mass can travel at 0.5c, two objects colliding at 0.5c is a ''crash'' at c.   F
I would say, "you can't add velocities linearly at relativistic speeds", but I'm sure you'd find some way to ignore it, as usual.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 20:46:24
I do not think we could collide table salt at c.

You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.
Of course mass can not travel at c, but mass can travel at 0.5c, two objects colliding at 0.5c is a ''crash'' at c.   F
I would say, "you can't add velocities linearly at relativistic speeds", but I'm sure you'd find some way to ignore it, as usual.
If you can add speeds together in a car crash to have double the force, then obviously travelling faster does not change this.

Also if mass was to become energy, then the energy could travel at c.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 20:48:10
If you can add speeds together in a car crash to have double the force, then obviously travelling faster does not change this.
Yep, just as I predicted.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 20:50:09
If you can add speeds together in a car crash to have double the force, then obviously travelling faster does not change this.
Yep, just as I predicted.
Explain why you think this simple piece of physics would alter any travelling faster?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 20:53:59
Explain why you think this simple piece of physics would alter any travelling faster?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Composition_of_velocities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Composition_of_velocities)
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 20:58:49
Explain why you think this simple piece of physics would alter any travelling faster?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Composition_of_velocities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Composition_of_velocities)
I can understand that, however I stated the relative speeds so I know from my stated speeds of 0.5c and 0.5c that it would be double the force.
I did not state 0.5c and 0.75c did I?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 21:08:08
I can understand that, however I stated the relative speeds so I know from my stated speeds of 0.5c and 0.5c that is would be double the force.
I did not state 0.5c and 0.75c did I?

Even without taking relativity into consideration, you don't get double the force by colliding two objects travelling at the same speed. See what Mythbusters demonstrated about this:

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 21:19:23
I can understand that, however I stated the relative speeds so I know from my stated speeds of 0.5c and 0.5c that is would be double the force.
I did not state 0.5c and 0.75c did I?

Even without taking relativity into consideration, you don't get double the force by colliding two objects travelling at the same speed. See what Mythbusters demonstrated about this:

OK, I have watched your video link, the test is flawed and they calculated incorrectly.   

At the end it is 1x + 1x  = 2x,   They need to only have one piece of clay in the final test on one arm only.

They are not calculating F / 2

If two cars are travelling at 50 mph head on, neither car knows who is moving, either car measure the other car travelling at 100 mph. 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 21:24:33
OK, I have watched your video link, the test is flawed and they calculated incorrectly.   

At the end it is 1x + 1x  = 2x,   They need to only have one piece of clay in the final test on one arm only.

They are not calculating F / 2

I'm not sure I understand the situation you are describing. You are talking about two particles moving at the same speed (relative to an outside observer) and then colliding head-on, right? If so, the two pendulum approach is exactly the same as that. The one pendulum method would be analogous to a single particle hitting a wall.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 21:34:03
OK, I have watched your video link, the test is flawed and they calculated incorrectly.   

At the end it is 1x + 1x  = 2x,   They need to only have one piece of clay in the final test on one arm only.

They are not calculating F / 2

I'm not sure I understand the situation you are describing. You are talking about two particles moving at the same speed (relative to an outside observer) and then colliding head-on, right? If so, the two pendulum approach is exactly the same as that. The one pendulum method would be analogous to a single particle hitting a wall.
Because they used two pieces of clay at the end, the squash of the clays was shared between the two clays, both of the squashes added together would equal the 1 smash of more swing , they used a single clay for that ,
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 21:38:30
Because they used two pieces of clay at the end, the squash of the clays was shared between the two clays, both of the squashes added together would equal the 1 smash of more swing , they used a single clay for that ,

I suppose then the question is, "what force are you measuring?" Are you talking about the force experienced by a hypothetical target right in the middle of the collision, or the force experienced by each particle? Another reason you can't add force up linearly like that is because doubling the speed of an object doesn't double its kinetic energy, it actually quadruples it (at subrelativistic speeds). The kinetic energy equation is exponential, not linear.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 21:43:04
Because they used two pieces of clay at the end, the squash of the clays was shared between the two clays, both of the squashes added together would equal the 1 smash of more swing , they used a single clay for that ,

I suppose then the question is, "what force are you measuring?" Are you talking about the force experienced by a hypothetical target right in the middle of the collision, or the force experienced by each particle? Another reason you can't add force up linearly like that is because doubling the speed of an object doesn't double its kinetic energy, it actually quadruples it. The kinetic energy equation is exponential, not linear.
I am measuring the force of impact by the observation.

If the clay compresses example 1cm from 1x and 2cm from 2x against the metal block

Then when both arms are dropped with the clay on each arm, from 1x, each clay is compressed 1cm , a total of 2cm
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 21:51:58
I am measuring the force of impact by the observation.

If the clay compresses example 1cm from 1x and 2cm from 2x against the metal block

Then when both arms are dropped with the clay on each arm, from 1x, each clay is compressed 1cm , a total of 2cm

I'm doubtful that the 2x speed pendulum compressed the clay exactly twice as much as the 1x speed pendulum, considering that the pendulum would have had four times as much kinetic energy when moving twice as fast. Clay doesn't compress linearly as force increases, so it's not a great way to get an exact measurement unless you know exactly how it behaves under compression.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 21:54:23
I am measuring the force of impact by the observation.

If the clay compresses example 1cm from 1x and 2cm from 2x against the metal block

Then when both arms are dropped with the clay on each arm, from 1x, each clay is compressed 1cm , a total of 2cm

I'm doubtful that the 2x speed pendulum compressed the clay exactly twice as much as the 1x speed pendulum, considering that the pendulum would have had four times as much kinetic energy when moving twice as fast. Clay doesn't compress linearly as force increases, so it's not a great way to get an exact measurement unless you know exactly how it behaves under compression.
True, it is not an ideal test , the steel block having more density etc.    I would not be sure about kinetic energy, I do not think that is what is meant to be exact.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 21:58:51
For the sake of continued consideration, this is what happened when the Mythbusters tested it with actual cars:

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 22:09:30
For the sake of continued consideration, this is what happened when the Mythbusters tested it with actual cars:

The results I expected to see.    There is no contradiction , there is twice the damage.   

100mph (F)  / 2  = damage

The fans are wrong not right.   

Putting it a different way ,  you see one car hit the wall at 50 mph, you see one car of damage

You see two cars head on at 50 mph, you see twice the damage of the 1 car  because there is two cars with equal damage tot he one car,

2 is not equal to 1
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 22:11:27
For the sake of continued consideration, this is what happened when the Mythbusters tested it with actual cars:

The results I expected to see.    There is no contradiction , there is twice the damage.   

100mph (F)  / 2  = damage

The fans are wrong not right.   

Which is still less than that of a crash into a wall at 100 mph, which would be four times the damage (since it's four times the kinetic energy, not two times).
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 22:15:10
For the sake of continued consideration, this is what happened when the Mythbusters tested it with actual cars:

The results I expected to see.    There is no contradiction , there is twice the damage.   

100mph (F)  / 2  = damage

The fans are wrong not right.   

Which is still less than that of a crash into a wall at 100 mph, which would be four times the damage (since it's four times the kinetic energy, not two times).
Lol I dont think you understand, the car crashing into the wall's damage at 100 mph is the same as the two cars crashing at 50 mph added together.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 22:20:56
I will do the math for you using 3 springs

A) under 100 lb pressure

B) under 50 lb pressure

c) under 50 lb pressure

b+c = a

c ≠ a

b ≠ a
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 22/02/2018 22:34:36
Lol I dont think you understand, the car crashing into the wall's damage at 100 mph is the same as the two cars crashing at 50 mph added together.
You realize that you can't say, "it's twice as short now therefore it experienced twice the force", right? The more a material is compressed, the more it resists compression and the harder it becomes to compress it further. It's not linear. Doubling the force equals less than double the compression.

Quote
I will do the math for you using 3 springs

A) under 100 lb pressure

B) under 50 lb pressure

c) under 50 lb pressure

b+c = a

That's true, but impact force is not linear. The car travelling at 100 miles per hour has four times the impact force as either of the cars travelling at 50 miles per hour. Here is how you do the actual math for a car crash: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/impact-force-d_1780.html (https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/impact-force-d_1780.html)
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 22:40:47
You realize that you can't say, "it's twice as short now therefore it experienced twice the force", right?
I was not been exact, just general chit chat.  I understand density plays a role. In general I was considering an equality of substances where I presume it the compression of material would be equal .
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 22:42:55
That's true, but impact force is not linear. The car travelling at 100 miles per hour has four times the impact force as either of the cars travelling at 50 miles per hour. Here is how you do the actual math for a car crash: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/impact-force-d_1780.html
Why 4 times the force, that does not make much sense unless the momentum adds force?  second thought I think I see your point but I also think there is a equality in there somewhere. 
Meaning two identical masses would have the same qualities so equally compress ?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 22:55:52
F = (m1 + m2)  * v    = 4 lol just playing

F=mp   looks good lol.

Shouldn't 1/2 mv be something different than v, v being speed and direction, how do you square speed and direction?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Colin2B on 22/02/2018 23:00:19
The correct answer is yes.
And, in spite of what Colin2B says, there is not scientific theory which lets you get away from that, because it's aan empirically observed fact.
I think you may have misunderstood what i said:

You need to caveat this statement with in the N Field new theory an electron cannot exist outside the atom.

The reason is that in current physics the electron has been observed outside the atom.
I didnt say it was a scientific theory ;)

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/02/2018 23:05:33
I didnt say it was a scientific theory
Shucks......

So let us discuss the independence of an electron,  are you saying this electron has a volume?

added- I have the answer that allows my theory to continue. 

For the purpose of discussion I ask for you to consider the following definition, an individual free electron is an electron shell with a hollow space nucleus. It's inability to complete its annihilation into a n-wave is because of the n-field enclosure it occupies.  The likewise electron half of the n-field sufficiently enclosing the electron within itself allowing the electron to retain form.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 01:56:19

* n-field electron.png (10.2 kB . 731x461 - viewed 1533 times)

Does that answer the question of how a free electron can exist in a n-field?

For a general reference, consider an air bubble under water.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: alancalverd on 23/02/2018 09:29:03
How do I know I am not looking at anions?

because there are no nuclei present in a vacuum.

Quote
How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?
because the annihilation of a free electron produces a single photon of 511 keV, not a picture on a cathode ray tube.

This stuff is all in the textbooks - why not read one?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 13:24:19
How do I know I am not looking at anions?

because there are no nuclei present in a vacuum.

Quote
How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?
because the annihilation of a free electron produces a single photon of 511 keV, not a picture on a cathode ray tube.

This stuff is all in the textbooks - why not read one?

I like interactive learning Alan, I do not like trying to remove any ambiguity in meanings from a book.   I like to hear other peoples thoughts and understanding on the subject rather than trying to decipher a book.

Anyway I believe my theory has just allowed for the existence of the electron within a n-field, I stand strong in that an electron could not exist outside of a n-field.

n-field bottling of the electron stops the electrons natural self annihilation.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 13:36:26
The N-field theory proposes that an individual electron could not be a Lepton , the Lepton would have gravity to other Leptons.  This is not evident and quite the opposite, Leptons repulse Leptons.  This suggesting that a Lepton cannot have two opposite point signs in the Lepton volume.
Therefore another answer is needed that allows the existence of the electron within the n-field.   After some deliberation in my mind,  I propose the n-field bottles the electron similar to but not exact like magnetic bottling used in Plasma fusion physics.

F1b>F1a

where set {a}  and a of set {b} have the same singleton element values and likewise force.

Force vector

←n-field →← electron→←n-field→

Obviously the containment of {a} by {b} is isotropic.

a ∈  {a}

a,b   ∈   {b}   

In the summation set, we can show  ∑{{,b,{a},b,}}   

In the form of an array we can show

bbb
bab
bbb

I would like you to consider this process under the conceptual definition of Quantum field physicality  ( Q.F.P)



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: alancalverd on 23/02/2018 14:33:59
From Wikipedia (since you don't like books)
Quote
A lepton is an elementary, half-integer spin particle that does not undergo strong interactions. Two main classes of leptons exist: charged leptons, and neutral leptons. Charged leptons can combine with other particles to form various composite particles such as atoms and positronium, while neutrinos rarely interact with anything, and are consequently rarely observed. The best known of all leptons is the electron.
My italics.

If you don't like the English language, please take your arguments to another board. On this planet, most scientific discussion is carried out in English using common definitions that scientists learn at school.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 15:15:46
From Wikipedia (since you don't like books)
Quote
A lepton is an elementary, half-integer spin particle that does not undergo strong interactions. Two main classes of leptons exist: charged leptons, and neutral leptons. Charged leptons can combine with other particles to form various composite particles such as atoms and positronium, while neutrinos rarely interact with anything, and are consequently rarely observed. The best known of all leptons is the electron.
My italics.

If you don't like the English language, please take your arguments to another board. On this planet, most scientific discussion is carried out in English using common definitions that scientists learn at school.
I mentioned nothing of Wiki and the general explanations and definitions.  I said books that are generally one persons thoughts and sentence structure.   

Anyway , you are presenting a difficulty with science defence.  Therefore I will provide a counter argument that regains the premise of my theory.

I ask you how many different types of particles can occupy and originate from a 0 point space?   

Because when all these different singleton particles start to get mentioned, I start thinking it becomes a bit far fetched.

Quite obviously there is only so much that can occupy a fractional  0,  R space.

In simplicity , a point particle cannot be made of several other different points.

{0}  A singleton is really small.   There is only more space if it expands.    {0}  created the first micro bang that created the universe.


In the beginning there was nothing observable, but this does not insinuate there was no dimensions of the non-observable.   At any given random point of this vast of nothingness, static charge begins to manifest ,self annihilation into a n-wave permeating through nothing.   Self annihilation because the points were singletons and likewise in polarity.
Then at one given random point , simultaneously manifests of opposite poles  create the very first N-field particle.
Of course all the already created n-field wave energy of opposite poles, came rushing in to that spot and this created a rather big bang.


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 15:56:14
The dense gases form around the formation of a singleton + singleton = N-field particle , all the surrounding n-wave energy is centripetally forced to the N-field particle. 

This makes a star within a n-field.  The expansion of the star is contained by the n-field's    Q.F.P 


added-   I got it

{0} + {0} = {1}   

set a + b = C =1
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 16:24:19
The reason the opposite pole  annihilation  n-waves do not merge is because of velocity and density. The annihilation n-waves are what powers our observable universe. I think you may call this CMBR.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: alancalverd on 23/02/2018 16:39:23
You may call this CMBR. The rest of us call it garbage.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 16:47:13
You may call this CMBR. The rest of us call it garbage.
I would also call it garbage if the physics did not work for the notion.     

Lets us start with the basic question,   

Would all a and b in a volume of R  space k be attracted to a+b in the same volume of R  space k?

singleton mono-pole e- = {a}

singleton mono-pole +1e = {b}

Binary system {{a + b}}

(we will soon see what garbage it isn't hey).

added- well we know the answer is yes because I can call for Coulomb to the ''dock''.

So therefore all  {{a+b}}  is attracted to all {{a+b}} 

all {a} is attracted to {{a+b}}

all {b} is attracted to {{a+b}}

Explaining why annihilation n-waves are drawn to mass.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2018 18:30:56
because the annihilation of a free electron produces a single photon of 511 keV,
You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed for an electron to be annihilated.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 23/02/2018 22:20:04
because the annihilation of a free electron produces a single photon of 511 keV,
You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed for an electron to be annihilated.
Or I could use google like normal

2.
PHYSICS
the conversion of matter into energy, especially the mutual conversion of a particle and an antiparticle into electromagnetic radiation.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 00:04:36
You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 00:24:30
You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed

No, I only need to look at physics and the physics involved.  I  noticed you ignored any questions as per normal.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 11:28:04
You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed

No, I only need to look at physics and the physics involved.  I  noticed you ignored any questions as per normal.
If your questions are based on a total misunderstanding of science then, at best they are not worth answering. In many cases there will be no answer.

Have you found out what the circumstances are  in which electrons are annihilated?
And that is a matter of physics, not matter how hard you try to ignore it.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 14:43:16
You need to ask a grown up to explain what circumstances are needed

No, I only need to look at physics and the physics involved.  I  noticed you ignored any questions as per normal.
If your questions are based on a total misunderstanding of science then, at best they are not worth answering. In many cases there will be no answer.

Have you found out what the circumstances are  in which electrons are annihilated?
And that is a matter of physics, not matter how hard you try to ignore it.

In my version I have told you why electrons are annihilated, because the physics says so.

Why what version do you think is other than my version?  I suppose you are gong to mention anti-pairs which is quite humorous really.

How many elements do you think can fit in a single  point?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 14:46:53
Electrons are not generally annihilated.
They only do that if they interact with a positron.
That's what the physics tells you.
But positrons are rare, so annihilation doesn't usually happen.

So, back to your earlier mistake, do you now realise that electrons do exist outside of atoms?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 14:50:56
Electrons are not generally annihilated.
They only do that if they interact with a positron.
That's what the physics tells you.
But positrons are rare, so annihilation doesn't usually happen.

So, back to your earlier mistake, do you now realise that electrons do exist outside of atoms?
Electrons can exist within a n-field, they cannot exist outside the n-field.  A positron cannot destroy an electron, an electron would have no Q.F.P   against a positron.   The positron would pass though the electron, the electron is a mono-pole, anyone saying it isn't is a blatant  lier.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 14:57:03
Do you also insist an electron has opposite signs to retain formation?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 15:02:35
Quite clearly a ''can'' full of ''beans'' does not maketh  the truth.  Your can Mr C is full of beans.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 15:05:54
My juicy steak is fresh , my juicy steak does not break any laws of physics.

Are my questions I present to you Mr C, too hard for you to answer?

If an atom =  (1+1=2) then 0.5 of an atom = 1,

0.5 of an atom does not equate to 0.5+0.5 = 1

An electron is a whole , it is not fractions making 1.


If an electron were 0.5+0.5 = 1, then it would attract other electrons. Not the case.

I explain the electrons existence within the n-field as  F2→>←F1
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 15:26:33
Do I really have to draw it all in baby language every time?



* ele.jpg (28.66 kB . 731x461 - viewed 1424 times)


That would be called a containment field.

b→←b→←b

p.s Yes that will fix your Plasma problem if you can create   F(a,b)>F(a,b)

added- Understand as with Newtons third law, space pushes back.   The likewise force of the n-fields pushing back all likewise fields. Q.F.P

accept the conceptual definition of Q.F.P (quantum field physicality).   Observed with magnets etc, proof.


The invisible ''rod'' between the magnets allowing me to push the other magnet without them touching. hence Q.F.P

Consider this, I am a stone-age man giving you some tools to use, you are the blacksmith who can make those tools better.
I do not 'see' the magnets in the video, I ''see'' two dense fields emitting less dense fields, I ''see'' these less dense fields being squashed when I push the magnet.  I neither 'see'' the magnetism, I only 'see' polarity. The polarity being the common thing of all fields.

U.F.T  = polarities

T.O.E  = polarities

Q.F.P = polarities

Gravity = polarities

fields = polarities

time = polariities

everything = polarities

I know more than I thought I knew, impressed myself :D





Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: alancalverd on 24/02/2018 16:33:07
Alas, drivel is drivel whether presented as meaningless equations or unlabelled diagrams.

But you clearly live in a different universe where gravity is not unipolar and any old nonsense passes as logic. Trumpton, perhaps?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 16:38:09
Alas, drivel is drivel whether presented as meaningless equations or unlabelled diagrams.

But you clearly live in a different universe where gravity is not unipolar and any old nonsense passes as logic. Trumpton, perhaps?
Gravity is a binary Alan, a+b=g   

The ground pushes back, that is the repulsion involved. There is no mythology in my notion, it is using all the physical facts without any make believe.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 16:48:47
An experiment

1) Pick up any object that is near you

2) ask yourself  the following questions

a) is the atomic negative polarity of this object attracted to all the positive atomic polarity of objects around it?

b) is the atomic positive polarity of this object attracted to all the negative atomic polarity of objects around it?

3) drop the object providing it is not breakable

4) does the ground repulse the object and push back?  of course it does

5)  Does a+b = g ?  of course it does because of both yes answers of questions a and b.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 17:00:13
added- The n-field is not dense enough to push back a N-field that is falling, only a N-field if likewise density can stop a N-field falling.

See if you can understand this:

The Earth maybe  in a state of expansion, but the earth's field emitted pushes back to create n-field pressure.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 17:09:56
I wonder if you will understand this diagram yet...


* neleastic.jpg (21.52 kB . 731x461 - viewed 1398 times)


The Earths field is expanding, the earth does not pull back like it use too, the poor poor moon.


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 17:13:47
A positron cannot destroy an electron,
As I have said before, if your view doesn't agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.

Do you also insist an electron has opposite signs to retain formation?
What do you think that means?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 17:18:08

What do you think that means?

After reading about the Lepton, I think that means that ''you'' think the electron has some sort of opposite elements that allow it's formation to exist.  Making the electron a binary singleton instead of a  singleton.  However that would be wrong.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 17:20:36
As I have said before, if your view doesn't agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.
By the laws of physics an electron v electron at high  speed should annihilate an electron because wave E=mc/2

which would equate to wave E = mc
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 17:51:27
R  (a, b) = a + b = G 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 18:18:33
After reading about the Lepton, I think that means that ''you'' think the electron has some sort of opposite elements that allow it's formation to exist.  Making the electron a binary singleton instead of a  singleton.  However that would be wrong.
You have tried to explain your gibberish with more gibberish.
By the laws of physics an electron v electron at high  speed should annihilate an electron because wave E=mc/2

which would equate to wave E = mc
Ditto

Your idea of electrons disappearing doesn't work. It can't- because of charge conservation.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 18:27:30
Your idea of electrons disappearing doesn't work. It can't- because of charge conservation.
Explain charge conservation?  I will also look it up
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 18:30:47
Quote
In physics, charge conservation is the principle that electric charge can neither be created nor destroyed. The net quantity of electric charge, the amount of positive charge minus the amount of negative charge in the universe, is always conserved.


The above applies to within a n-field system.   Any dispersed n-wave energy is regathered because of the inner product attractiveness properties.

Mathematical explained R (a, b) = a + b = G

The laws of physics suggest that an electron cannot retain form , be a inner product, without a binding or a pressured force.

Explain how a ''free'' electron can retain form ?



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 18:40:48
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 19:21:16
Explain how a ''free'' electron can retain form ?
I don't need to explain why your made up nonsense is wrong.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 19:47:17
Explain how a ''free'' electron can retain form ?
I don't need to explain why your made up nonsense is wrong.

You are the one claiming it is nonsense and wrong, therefore an explanation is required to justify your statement.  Saying something is wrong without explanation is subjective and not very truthful. 
Are you afraid that if you answer my questions truthfully it would re-enforce my notion?

I do not need you to re-enforce my notion, I already understand it is credible.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 20:39:57
g= (Fe-+F+1e) + (Fe-+F+1e) = F=r0

Because ((-ε)  +  (+ε ) )  + ((+ε)  +  (-ε ) )  = 0 ε and is cumulative. 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 24/02/2018 20:51:54
I do not need you to re-enforce my notion, I already understand it is credible.

Says the guy who once claimed to have a logical axiom proof that time dilation can't happen.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 20:57:27
I do not need you to re-enforce my notion, I already understand it is credible.

Says the guy who once claimed to have a logical axiom proof that time dilation can't happen.
Well, time dilation does not happen quite  the way science think it happens, so technically I was correct. Time is not independent of the Caesium, the  change of frequency is an internal change of the Caesium.    Yes agreed by some affect of the energy in space. Nothing to do with any space-time though.  No such thing.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 21:03:46
Explain how a ''free'' electron can retain form ?
I don't need to explain why your made up nonsense is wrong.

You are the one claiming it is nonsense and wrong, therefore an explanation is required to justify your statement.  Saying something is wrong without explanation is subjective and not very truthful. 
Are you afraid that if you answer my questions truthfully it would re-enforce my notion?

I do not need you to re-enforce my notion, I already understand it is credible.


For a start, the burden of proof goes the other way.
You are making  stuff up so it falls to you to prove that it is right.


An explanation is not required when what I am doing is pointing out that your idea is inconsistent with observed fact.
I don't need to say why you are wrong; I just need to show that you are wrong.
And I have- for example, I have cited things that show that isolated electrons exist.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 24/02/2018 21:05:44
Well, time dilation does not happen quite  the way science think it happens, so technically I was correct.

Yes, the consensus of the scientific community is wrong because some guy whose only science experience comes from talking on message boards said so. Someone who does not have a degree in physics, who does not have a job as a scientist and who has no means to conduct tests of his hypotheses clearly knows more than actual scientists do...
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 21:06:19
I have cited things that show that isolated electrons exist.

I have cited things that show why an isolated electron can exist in a n-field.  I used Plasma bottling as an example.


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 21:11:43
Well, time dilation does not happen quite  the way science think it happens, so technically I was correct.

Yes, the consensus of the scientific community is wrong because some guy whose only science experience comes from talking on message boards said so. Someone who does not have a degree in physics, who does not have a job as a scientist and who has no means to conduct tests of his hypotheses clearly knows more than actual scientists do...
What I know is what ''actual scientists'' over the years have taught me. I am just simply putting methods to practise and making the most of what I learnt.
I am a product of your own thinking. My science completes quantum mechanics, I am saying science is more than right, I am just finishing the details.   How you put this is up to science, but I did not make the physics up , it is there on wiki in black and white to work out things. The physics in my notions work, such as time

:Δt {R k }  = 0

R k  =  Δr

:Δr = v

:Δt  ∝  Δ S

:ΔS ∝  Δt

The above math is exactly what science and members have told me.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 21:19:50
P.s a + b = t
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 21:26:01
T.O.E =   a + b 

Without a + b , things cannot exist, not even time.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2018 21:44:00
I have cited things that show that isolated electrons exist.

I have cited things that show why an isolated electron can exist in a n-field.  I used Plasma bottling as an example.

In the real world, electrons exist outside of plasma bottles.

Why do you keep making this sh1t up?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/02/2018 22:13:18


Why do you keep making this sh1t up?


You are really not very good at understanding comparisons are you?   

Spacial n-fields bottle single free electrons.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 04:33:20
I am saying science is more than right, I am just finishing the details.

Yet you reject many scientific findings, either because you don't understand them or because they contradict your hypotheses. So what you are actually saying is, "science is right so long as it agrees with me".
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 06:18:36
I am saying science is more than right, I am just finishing the details.

Yet you reject many scientific findings, either because you don't understand them or because they contradict your hypotheses. So what you are actually saying is, "science is right so long as it agrees with me".
Reject?

I have understood relativity, defined time to a precise definition keeping inline with time dilation.   I have described gravity based on present  information. 
I have strengthened science not weakened it.   
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 10:31:25
Spacial n-fields bottle single free electrons.
That's exactly the kind of made-up sh1t I meant.
I have understood relativity, defined time to a precise definition keeping inline with time dilation.   I have described gravity based on present  information. 

Your so called "understanding" wasn't valid.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 15:04:37
Reject?

I have understood relativity, defined time to a precise definition keeping inline with time dilation.   I have described gravity based on present  information. 
I have strengthened science not weakened it.   

You have denied the existence of many subatomic particles. You have denied that protons are composed of quarks. You have denied that positrons and electrons annihilate each other. You have denied that Rayleigh scattering is what makes the sky blue. You have denied the way that basic orbital mechanics works.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 15:50:56
You have denied the way that basic orbital mechanics works.
I have answered how the fabric of space and space-time works.  As for the other you mentioned, my theory does not ''care'' about that , because my theory is a new theory and different than present set naive theory.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 17:25:21
I have answered how the fabric of space and space-time works. 
You have posted word salad.

As for the other you mentioned, my theory does not ''care'' about that , because my theory is a new theory and different than present set naive theory.

The current theory works.
Yours is different.

You might want to think about that for a minute or two.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 17:25:36
Spacial n-fields bottle single free electrons.
That's exactly the kind of made-up sh1t I meant.
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 06:18:36
Made up?  You really have a poor ability to think about forces Mr C.   

Let us gain understanding and let us begin with a discussion of a singleton set  {a} 

and

all a ∈ {a} 

Now a  is all the same polarity, and {a} is the volume of a.

Now you agree this conceptual singleton, an inner product in a R space,  would be in a state of expansion?

Calling to the ''dock'',  Coulomb's law's.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 17:26:54
The current theory works.
Yours is different.
My theory is different, but my theory also works and shows some of your theory cannot work.  That's the problem my friend.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 17:39:28
Moving on Mr C as I know you already agree with that because you cannot disagree because this is what physical actions and laws states.

Now ask yourself Mr C , what would stop the expansion of   {a}   to   ∞<<<{a}>>>∞?

Would we not need

F1 ∝ F2?

Would we not need something pushing back?

Now quite clearly Mr C, an opposite pole could not push back, only a likewise pole could push back.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 17:43:35
I have answered how the fabric of space and space-time works.  As for the other you mentioned, my theory does not ''care'' about that , because my theory is a new theory and different than present set naive theory.

It had better "care", because (as I have pointed out in other threads) there are subatomic particles which do not have a trace of electric charge yet they have mass. So any hypothesis that proposes that mass and gravity are caused by electric charge has to be wrong.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 17:47:01
singleton set 
Until you define that  you are just proving me right about you posting nonsense.
It has a definition in maths, but that doesn't seem to be the one you are using, because this "Now a  is all the same polarity, and {a} is the volume of a. " would be a total non sequitur in that case.



My theory is different, but my theory also works and shows some of your theory cannot work.  That's the problem my friend.
You have shown nothing of the sort.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 17:49:37
I have answered how the fabric of space and space-time works.  As for the other you mentioned, my theory does not ''care'' about that , because my theory is a new theory and different than present set naive theory.

It had better "care", because (as I have pointed out in other threads) there are subatomic particles which do not have a trace of electric charge yet they have mass. So any hypothesis that proposes that mass and gravity are caused by electric charge has to be wrong.
I am not proposing electric charge, I am proposing polarity.  Polarity is the rudiment of existence, without opposite polarities there can be no physical Universe. 

a + b  = everything

My theory is a lot bigger than I first thought, it explains everything in a general manner, the intricate detail math , admitting will be difficult.
Try answering my questions I pose , that is the only way you may understand, your answers will lead to the same conclusion in this conceptual argument.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 17:51:20
singleton set
Until you define that  you are just proving me right about you posting nonsense.
It has a definition in maths, but that doesn't seem to be the one you are using, because this "Now a  is all the same polarity, and {a} is the volume of a. " would be a total non sequitur in that case.


Our singleton has 1 element which has a volume,  all points of this volume are likewise in polarity.



My theory is different, but my theory also works and shows some of your theory cannot work.  That's the problem my friend.
You have shown nothing of the sort.

Dude you have a big problem with cold reading everything.

In mathematics, a singleton, also known as a unit set, is a set with exactly one element. For example, the set {0} is a singleton. The term is also used for a 1-tuple (a sequence with one member).
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 17:55:06
I am not proposing electric charge, I am proposing polarity.  Polarity is the rudiment of existence, without opposite polarities there can be no physical Universe. 

a + b  = everything

My theory is a lot bigger than I first thought, it explains everything in a general manner, the intricate detail math , admitting will be difficult.
Try answering my questions I pose , that is the only way you may understand, your answers will lead to the same conclusion in this conceptual argument.

If you're not talking about the polarity of electric charge or the polarity of magnetic poles, then what kind of polarity are you talking about?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 17:58:14
I am not proposing electric charge, I am proposing polarity.  Polarity is the rudiment of existence, without opposite polarities there can be no physical Universe. 

a + b  = everything

My theory is a lot bigger than I first thought, it explains everything in a general manner, the intricate detail math , admitting will be difficult.
Try answering my questions I pose , that is the only way you may understand, your answers will lead to the same conclusion in this conceptual argument.

If you're not talking about the polarity of electric charge or the polarity of magnetic poles, then what kind of polarity are you talking about?
I am talking about the unification of field theory, the common factor being polarity, we only need to look at a and b.


For the purpose of discussion you can imagine an electron if you like.   It works for explanation purposes.

Changing it to suit

All e- ∈  {a}
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 17:58:57
Dude you have a big problem with cold reading everything.

In mathematics, a singleton, also known as a unit set, is a set with exactly one element. For example, the set {0} is a singleton. The term is also used for a 1-tuple (a sequence with one member).
know about singleton sets.
However they have nothing to do with the rest of your post. They are an  abstract mathematical entity with no physical properties.
So your post made no sense.


Would you like to try again?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 17:59:23
the common factor being polarity,
Polarity of what?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:00:27
the common factor being polarity,
Polarity of what?

The polarity of whatever, magnetic polarity, charge polarity, field polarity, polarity means the same thing in any instant.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 18:02:22
The polarity of whatever, magnetic polarity, charge polarity, field polarity, polarity means the same thing in any instant.

No it doesn't. The polarity of an electric field is not the same as the polarity of a magnetic field. They behave differently.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:02:46
Dude you have a big problem with cold reading everything.

In mathematics, a singleton, also known as a unit set, is a set with exactly one element. For example, the set {0} is a singleton. The term is also used for a 1-tuple (a sequence with one member).
know about singleton sets.
However they have nothing to do with the rest of your post. They are an  abstract mathematical entity with no physical properties.
So your post made no sense.


Would you like to try again?
No I do not need to explain again, it is obvious what I am saying and you are just being really awkward.

So to adjust for you


All e-  ∈  {R} 

Can you work with that?

To contain the expansion

F1 ∝  F1 being likewise in polarity.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:04:02
The polarity of whatever, magnetic polarity, charge polarity, field polarity, polarity means the same thing in any instant.

No it doesn't. The polarity of an electric field is not the same as the polarity of a magnetic field. They behave differently.
Likewise polarities repulse , opposite polarities attract, they do not work differently although they may have different characteristics.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 18:08:32
Likewise polarities repulse , opposite polarities attract, they do not work differently although they may have different characteristics.

That isn't true of gravity or the strong nuclear force.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:12:14
Likewise polarities repulse , opposite polarities attract, they do not work differently although they may have different characteristics.

That isn't true of gravity or the strong nuclear force.
But yes it is, if you answer the questions, you might realise why it is true.   

:g(F) = {a+b} + {a+b}   

Because all the statements are true in a truth table.

I understand the strong nuclear force,  it is a bit like a Chinese finger puzzle.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 18:15:41
But yes it is, if you answer the questions, you might realise why it is true.   

:g(F) = {a+b} + {a+b}   

Because all the statements are true in a truth table.

I understand the strong nuclear force,  it is a bit like a Chinese finger puzzle.

I don't need your tables or whatever to know that like attracts like for gravity and that like attracts like for the strong nuclear force at moderate ranges and like repels like at closer range. If your reasoning is at odds with observed experimental data, then the error is in your reasoning.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 18:16:35
it is obvious what I am saying
No.
You say things like this
The polarity of whatever, magnetic polarity, charge polarity, field polarity, polarity means the same thing in any instant.

which is wrong.
So it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.

I understand the strong nuclear force,  it is a bit like a Chinese finger puzzle.
LOL
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:17:13
But yes it is, if you answer the questions, you might realise why it is true.   

:g(F) = {a+b} + {a+b}   

Because all the statements are true in a truth table.

I understand the strong nuclear force,  it is a bit like a Chinese finger puzzle.

I don't need your tables or whatever to know that like attracts like for gravity and that like attracts like for the strong nuclear force at moderate ranges and like repels like at closer range. If your reasoning is at odds with observed experimental data, then the error is in your reasoning.
My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.

Is all a attracted to a,b

Is all b attracted to a,b

yes  and yes ,  True and true

Is all a,b attracted to a,b

yes , true.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 18:19:13
My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.

Is all a attracted to a,b

Is all b attracted to a,b

yes  and yes ,  True and true

Is all a,b attracted to a,b

yes , true.
That's neither reasoning, nor data
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:19:53
So it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.

So you don't understand but declare it nonsense?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:20:42
My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.

Is all a attracted to a,b

Is all b attracted to a,b

yes  and yes ,  True and true

Is all a,b attracted to a,b

yes , true.
That's neither reasoning, nor data
Are you denying Coulomb's laws?

Are you denying opposite poles attract regardless of the ''material''?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 18:22:09
My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.

Is all a attracted to a,b

Is all b attracted to a,b

yes  and yes ,  True and true

Is all a,b attracted to a,b

yes , true.
That's neither reasoning, nor data
Are you denying Coulomb's laws?

Coulomb's law is for the electromagnetic force. I'm talking about gravity and the strong nuclear force.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:27:01
My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.

Is all a attracted to a,b

Is all b attracted to a,b

yes  and yes ,  True and true

Is all a,b attracted to a,b

yes , true.
That's neither reasoning, nor data
Are you denying Coulomb's laws?

Coulomb's law is for the electromagnetic force. I'm talking about gravity and the strong nuclear force.
I know coulomb's law is for electromagnetic force , but it is the best one for describing polarity interaction. 

Why not answer the questions instead of being objective without answering the questions?

Pick up any object that is by you please.

Is the atomic negative polarity of that object attracted to the atomic positive polarity of the ground and near by objects.

A simple yes or no answer is needed.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 18:39:48
You know the answer is yes because both negative polarity and positive polarity is individually attracted to neutral

so therefore

a is attracted to a,b

b is attracted to a,b

and conclusion

a,b is attracted to a,b


added-

a can merge with b

b can merge with a

a cannot merge with a

b cannot merge with b

a,b has physicality relative to other a,b

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 19:09:31
So it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.

So you don't understand but declare it nonsense?

No
I am saying that, if you don't explain it then it will make sense to nobody.
And that will mean it is nonsense.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 19:28:09
So it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.

So you don't understand but declare it nonsense?

No
I am saying that, if you don't explain it then it will make sense to nobody.
And that will mean it is nonsense.
I have explained in several different ways already.  OK, forget everything I have mentioned so far,

Let us look at the Jack in a box, a spring compressed by the lid of the box.

Do you agree that for the Jack to remain in the box,   F ∝ F of the lid?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 19:33:15
What do you mean by
 F ∝ F of the lid?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 19:36:40
What do you mean by
F ∝ F of the lid?

I mean what it says, obviously F is force  and obviously ∝ is proportional to. The force  pushing down, has to be at least proportional  to the force pushing up to keep the Jack in the box.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 19:54:23
Interesting though from this discussion I may have a basic concept for a some sort of piston that works on light energy .
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 19:56:32
What do you mean by
F ∝ F of the lid?

I mean what it says, obviously F is force  and obviously ∝ is proportional to. The force  pushing down, has to be at least proportional  to the force pushing up to keep the Jack in the box.

It is traditional to avoid confusion by using different  letters for different things so
F is proportional to F
is a bit pointless.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 20:03:16
What do you mean by
F ∝ F of the lid?

I mean what it says, obviously F is force  and obviously ∝ is proportional to. The force  pushing down, has to be at least proportional  to the force pushing up to keep the Jack in the box.

It is traditional to avoid confusion by using different  letters for different things so
F is proportional to F
is a bit pointless.

Ok well now you know it means force.  It is hardly rocket science to put F1 and F2

I thought I would share this with you as well as its cool.


* piston.jpg (39.03 kB . 731x461 - viewed 1564 times)



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/02/2018 20:18:50
In your post title does the N stand for non-existent? You are such a stubborn individual. If you dropped the attitude you might get interested in learning. I know you are capable but it's so much more fun baiting other members. Science can also be fun.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 20:24:27
In your post title does the N stand for non-existent? You are such a stubborn individual. If you dropped the attitude you might get interested in learning. I know you are capable but it's so much more fun baiting other members. Science can also be fun.
The N stands for neutral Jeffrey, I am not winding up or baiting anybody.   I do have fun as well , but if nobody is answering the questions then the questions remain to be asked. 
If the answers lead to a conclusion , is that not the conclusion based on the answers?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 20:32:07
I ask you Jeffrey the same question

If a is a single element that occupies a volume of space  {a}  with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise in polarity, can {a} retain form?

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 20:41:10
If a is a single element that occupies a volume of space  {a}  with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise in polarity, can {a} retain form?

1)If a is a single element that occupies a volume of space  {a}  with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise in polarity, can {a} retain form?

2)If b is a single element that occupies a volume of space  {a}  with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise in polarity, can {a} retain form?

3)If a and b are individual single elements that occupies a volume of space  {a}  with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise and opposite in polarity, can {a} retain form?

Propose

1) no
2) no
3) yes

propose force vectors

1) a←→a
2) b←→b
3) a→←b


Propose vector

1) +v
2) +v
3)  -v


4) If the combined elements of a + b occupy a volume of space {a}  , is {a} attracted to other {a}   ?

propose
4) yes

Propose force vector

4)a,b→←a,b

Propose vector

4)-v





Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 21:06:35
It is hardly rocket science to put F1 and F2
It's simple  and obvious.
So the fact that you didn't do it says a lot about you.

Anyway, are you saying (as Newton already did) the the box lid presses back on the Jack?
If so, why call it a proportionality?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 21:15:19
It is hardly rocket science to put F1 and F2
It's simple  and obvious.
So the fact that you didn't do it says a lot about you.

Anyway, are you saying (as Newton already did) the the box lid presses back on the Jack?
If so, why call it a proportionality?

Because the force of containment has to be greater than or proportional to the force of the jack. Yes Newtons laws, the lid pushes back (ignoring it is a mechanism that holds the lid of course).


So ok you got that so far, now in imagination I want you to replace the Jack with electrons.     And make the box out of electrons. 

Are you ok with that in imagination?





Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 21:44:40
What's holding everything together?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 21:49:48
What's holding everything together?
Great , I predicted your next question, now you can add the imaginary proton wall to the imaginary electron wall of the box ,  to hold the box together.


a + b = box

a without b or b without a does not equal anything, it falls apart.


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2018 21:54:42
now you can add the imaginary proton wall
What's holding that together?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 21:58:11
now you can add the imaginary proton wall
What's holding that together?
The electron wall
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 25/02/2018 22:01:54
a sustains b's form and b sustains a's form.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 25/02/2018 23:00:07
I know coulomb's law is for electromagnetic force , but it is the best one for describing polarity interaction.

Not when it comes to gravity or the strong nuclear force. If those two forces violate your argument, then obviously you are not talking about polarity in general. Rather, you are talking about a specific form of polarity: that of electromagnetism.

Quote
Why not answer the questions instead of being objective without answering the questions?

Pick up any object that is by you please.

Is the atomic negative polarity of that object attracted to the atomic positive polarity of the ground and near by objects.

A simple yes or no answer is needed.

That depends on what form of polarity you are talking about. Electromagnetic, I presume?

The electron wall

So the wall is made of hydrogen then? That's what you get when you combine electrons and protons.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 00:09:37
Not when it comes to gravity or the strong nuclear force. If those two forces violate your argument, then obviously you are not talking about polarity in general. Rather, you are talking about a specific form of polarity: that of electromagnetism.
My argument explains those two forces. So it definitely does not violate it. 
I am talking about polarity is the force.   Polarity in general .
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 01:29:37
My argument explains those two forces. So it definitely does not violate it.

It does if you say that opposite polarities always attract each other. Protons have a hypercharge of +1, so when two protons attract each other via the strong nuclear force, it is an example of two like polarities attracting each other. Things are even more complicated when the strong force between quarks is involved, as there are six polarities (color charge) instead of only two (blue, green and red for quarks and cyan, yellow and magenta for antiquarks). Quark polarities attract each other when they add up to "white", which is quite different from the way that polarity works with electromagnetism.

Quote
I am talking about polarity is the force.

Can you rephrase this? The grammar makes it difficult to understand.

Quote
Polarity in general .

That's like saying "chemical reactions in general": it's different for different instances.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 01:58:51
I am talking about polarity is the force.

Can you rephrase this? The grammar makes it difficult to understand.
Consider polarity as a point of attraction or repulsion.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 02:00:42
Consider polarity as a point of attraction or repulsion.

Not exactly a typical definition of polarity, given that electric fields are stilled considered to have a polarity even if they are not attracting or repelling anything.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 02:05:07
Consider polarity as a point of attraction or repulsion.

Not exactly a typical definition of polarity, given that electric fields are stilled considered to have a polarity even if they are not attracting or repelling anything.
Are they really not attracting anything ? 

If an electric field 'E' is made up of elements a + b then the elements remain attractive and repulsive. 

The sky does not let harmful rays in because it is  repulsive. 

Please accept the conceptual definition of Q.F.P , quantum field physicality as observed with magnets.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 02:12:54
Are they really not attracting anything ?

Technically you could say they are, but an isolate charge far from other charges produces such a weak force that it may as well not be considered.

Quote
If an electric field 'E' is made up of elements a + b then the elements remain attractive and repulsive.

What experiment has demonstrated that electric fields are made up two elements?

Quote
The sky does not let harmful rays in because it is  repulsive.

So you don't know how the ozone layer works either?

Quote
Please accept the conceptual definition of Q.F.P , quantum field physicality as observed with magnets.

I have no need to because solidity is sufficiently-well explained by existing physics models.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 02:17:50
What experiment has demonstrated that electric fields are made up two elements?
When you measure it to be neutral , 0 charge.

Please accept the conceptual definition of Q.F.P , quantum field physicality as observed with magnets.

Quote
I have no need to because solidity is sufficiently-well explained by existing physics models.

Existing models do not explain the ''fabric'' of space.  Einsteins space-time curvature if you like.   A body emits a field, the field also has body but not as dense as the source.  Fields push back against fields. i.e they have physical body.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 02:25:01
When you measure it to be neutral , 0 charge.

So it's not true of all electric fields then.

Quote
Existing models do not explain the ''fabric'' of space.  Einsteins space-time curvature if you like.   A body emits a field, the field also has body but not as dense as the source.  Fields push back against fields. i.e they have physical body.

So what definition of "physical" are you using?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 02:28:15
When you measure it to be neutral , 0 charge.

So it's not true of all electric fields then.

Quote
Existing models do not explain the ''fabric'' of space.  Einsteins space-time curvature if you like.   A body emits a field, the field also has body but not as dense as the source.  Fields push back against fields. i.e they have physical body.

So what definition of "physical" are you using?
Any electrical field that is not measuring neutral is polarised as such.

I am using physical in the same sense as you, as related to the body , something that has mass.   Something that has a density.

Simply imagine two bubbles with a nucleus pushing on each other.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 02:34:33
I drew it you

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 02:46:25
I will leave you with these questions to ask yourself about the diagram.

Would a repulse a ?

Would b repulse b ?

would a be attracted to b ?

would b be attracted to a?


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 04:42:44
I will leave you with these questions to ask yourself about the diagram.

Would a repulse a ?

Would b repulse b ?

would a be attracted to b ?

would b be attracted to a?

Without knowing what exactly I'm looking at, I can't answer the questions. What is a? What is b? What is the nucleus? What kind of field is it?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 10:48:43
I will leave you with these questions to ask yourself about the diagram.

Would a repulse a ?

Would b repulse b ?

would a be attracted to b ?

would b be attracted to a?

Without knowing what exactly I'm looking at, I can't answer the questions. What is a? What is b? What is the nucleus? What kind of field is it?
It is an atomic field of two opposite polarities a and b, the nucleus in the diagram is a planet or body.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 18:03:20
It is an atomic field of two opposite polarities a and b, the nucleus in the diagram is a planet or body.

What is an "atomic field"? Are the polarities electric charge?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 18:13:44
It is an atomic field of two opposite polarities a and b, the nucleus in the diagram is a planet or body.

What is an "atomic field"? Are the polarities electric charge?
I suppose it may be an electrostatic field.   Although I like to think all fields are a transformation of this singular field.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 18:20:10
I suppose it may be an electrostatic field.   Although I like to think all fields are a transformation of this singular field.

If the fields contain an even distribution of positive and negative charges, then there will be no attraction or repulsion between the two bodies.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 18:24:58
I suppose it may be an electrostatic field.   Although I like to think all fields are a transformation of this singular field.

If the fields contain an even distribution of positive and negative charges, then there will be no attraction or repulsion between the two bodies.
That is the ostensible part ''you'' are failing to see.   It is the other was around, there would be attraction and there would be repulsion when the objects meet, space not having the density to stop -ve  of the objects. There would be no net charge but that does not mean all of sudden the properties of the object stop working.   Force does not rely on having a charge, force is force.

 
Quote
Natural electric field of the Earth

Thunderheads near Borneo, Indonesia are featured in this image photographed by an Expedition 40 crew member on the International Space Station. Credit: M. Justin Wilkinson, Jacobs and Michael Trenchard, Barrios Technology at NASA-JSC.
The natural electric field of the Earth refers to the planet Earth having a natural direct current (DC) electric field or potential gradient from the ground upwards to the ionosphere. The static fair-weather electric field in the atmosphere is ~150 volts per meter (V/m) near the Earth's surface, but it drops exponentially with height to under 1 V/m at 30 km altitude, as the conductivity of the atmosphere increases.


Slightly polarised in the denser regions nearer the mass object.

added- second thought , the measure is the air I think.   The air being denser and being slightly polarised.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 18:38:05
If anyone is wondering, we could never produce a spaceship that just went into space by some sort of hover, but we may be able to make hover cars for the ground.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 26/02/2018 18:39:00
That is the ostensible part ''you'' are failing to see.   It is the other was around, there would be attraction and there would be repulsion when the objects meet, space not having the density to stop -ve  of the objects. There would be no net charge but that does not mean all of sudden the properties of the object stop working.   Force does not rely on having a charge, force is force.

When forces apply in equal and opposite directions, they cancel out. If you tie a helium balloon with a lifting power of 1 pound to a 1 pound weight, the resulting configuration has no net weight and so neither moves towards or away from the Earth. The wind (or your hands) could move it around freely in any direction.

Quote
Quote
Natural electric field of the Earth

Thunderheads near Borneo, Indonesia are featured in this image photographed by an Expedition 40 crew member on the International Space Station. Credit: M. Justin Wilkinson, Jacobs and Michael Trenchard, Barrios Technology at NASA-JSC.
The natural electric field of the Earth refers to the planet Earth having a natural direct current (DC) electric field or potential gradient from the ground upwards to the ionosphere. The static fair-weather electric field in the atmosphere is ~150 volts per meter (V/m) near the Earth's surface, but it drops exponentially with height to under 1 V/m at 30 km altitude, as the conductivity of the atmosphere increases.


Slightly polarised in the denser regions nearer the mass object.

I don't see in that quote where it says the Earth's electric field is polarized in particular directions.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 18:53:08
When forces apply in equal and opposite directions, they cancel out.
I should hope so or my N-field particle would have big problems retaining form. 

However if you understand that notion fully, it is not difficult to understand me. 

The force only cancels out when the objects are touching.   Free space does not have the density or force to stop a dense mass object ''falling''.
 
It is easier if I explain to you with a set of pan scales. However these pan scales are my special scales that I have yet to make to prove my theory.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Now the only reason the radius remains is because of the rod.





Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 19:13:19
Quite clearly of we remove the rod , the planes will join.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 19:18:16
I think it is quite clear

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2018 19:24:18
I think it is quite clear
Can you find a single person who agrees with you?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2018 19:34:22
a sustains b's form and b sustains a's form.
OK, so, if we use copper nuclei  (as an  example) instead of protons then the box with electrons is a lump of copper.
Hardly cutting edge.
Since (some of ) the electrons are the outermost bit of the box you have finally found the system I pointed out earlier.
The "box" (The stuff that holds the electrons together) is inside the electrons.

I explained this to you here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72338.msg533308#msg533308
a week or two ago.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 19:37:46
I think it is quite clear
Can you find a single person who agrees with you?
I do not actually need to find a single person who agrees with me , although I have had some agreement about gravity. 

A person as to agree with the physics, not agree with me.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 19:41:29
a sustains b's form and b sustains a's form.
OK, so, if we use copper nuclei  (as an  example) instead of protons then the box with electrons is a lump of copper.
Hardly cutting edge.
Since (some of ) the electrons are the outermost bit of the box you have finally found the system I pointed out earlier.
The "box" (The stuff that holds the electrons together) is inside the electrons.

I explained this to you here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72338.msg533308#msg533308
a week or two ago.
HUH.....there is no electron without a proton.   The stuff inside of an electron is likewise to itself.   Well actually the stuff inside of an electron is space, the shell is likewise to itself.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 19:51:14
Electron model


* electron.jpg (22.86 kB . 731x461 - viewed 1751 times)

The electron space is the enclosure of electron space pushing back.



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2018 20:06:55
there is no electron without a proton.
In the real world we have videos of them.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 26/02/2018 20:18:30
there is no electron without a proton.
In the real world we have videos of them.

Existing because they are in a n-field.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2018 20:31:19
So, the n field keeps the elephants away.
http://www.medical-jokes.com/its-to-keep-the-elephants-away/
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 01:11:30
So, the n field keeps the elephants away.
http://www.medical-jokes.com/its-to-keep-the-elephants-away/

Effective isn't it .
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 09:09:26
I think it is quite clear
Can you find a single person who agrees with you?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 10:49:24
I think it is quite clear
Can you find a single person who agrees with you?

Actually yes, the person who is emailing me and helping with my edit on the paper.  They understood and told me I should not give up on this idea.
Also I think it was Alan who agreed I had found gravity mechanism . You even replied to him and said basically , well yes but it hardly adds anything new. (You never said the word yes though). 

What science does with the notion and how science puts the notion is up to them, they will word it more precise than I ever could. It may take them several year just to discuss the notion .  I just hope I live long enough to see the notion on Wiki and wherever.

I am certain that neutral is attracted to neutral.  I may or not be correct about my N-field and n-field although the physics works and it explains the space ''fabric''.

I am certain about time and can objectively define time to a precise and exact definition.

I have some good thinking on light and the nature of light. 

I always knew what I know and what I don't know because I can't know everything.

added - Mr C

Quote
You must not:

ignore inconvenient facts or relevant considerations when providing advice or making decisions




Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 13:47:15
Also I think it was Alan who agreed I had found gravity mechanism .
Does Alan think so?

I think it is quite clear
Can you find a single person who agrees with you?

Actually yes, the person who is emailing me and helping with my edit on the paper.  They understood and told me I should not give up on this idea.
Can you find anyone who is actually prepared to say in public that they agree with you
Also, is your email correspondent qualified?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 18:17:57
Also I think it was Alan who agreed I had found gravity mechanism .
Does Alan think so?

I think it is quite clear
Can you find a single person who agrees with you?

Actually yes, the person who is emailing me and helping with my edit on the paper.  They understood and told me I should not give up on this idea.
Can you find anyone who is actually prepared to say in public that they agree with you
Also, is your email correspondent qualified?

The person whom I speak to in email has told me they have written several books.  They also said they will be happy to have their name in the co-write .
We both agree that we should be patience in writing the paper.   Whether or not this person will come forward in this thread and back me up, I do not know .
I will email them  and ask them , they are a member of this forum.

added- In short,  gravity is the natural phenomenon of a neutral electrostatic field is attracted to all other signed electrostatic fields.  All other signed electrostatic fields are attracted to  neutral electrostatic fields.   A phenomenon that is only functional if neutral exists, the combined function of a + b signs allowing G to be functional. Where a and b represent the individual opposite,  electrostatic signs.

a and b and a+b is attracted to a,b

F1  ∈  {a}

F2  ∈  {b}

F1  + F2  ∈  {a,b}



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 19:04:30
The person whom I speak to in email has told me they have written several books. 
So  has J K Rowling,  but it doesn't qualify her to comment on a hypothesis in physics.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 19:08:43
The person whom I speak to in email has told me they have written several books.
So  has J K Rowling,  but it doesn't qualify her to comment on a hypothesis in physics.
True, I do not know the persons qualifications.  However, I am sure everyone should be able to agree with my latest short explanation?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 19:14:58
However, I am sure everyone should be able to agree with my latest short explanation?
I'm still waiting for you to produce a single real person who agrees with it.
I can produce at least one person (me) who says it's nonsense.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 19:19:53
However, I am sure everyone should be able to agree with my latest short explanation?
I'm still waiting for you to produce a single real person who agrees with it.
I can produce at least one person (me) who says it's nonsense.
I have sent an email so await a reply.  Also Alan as not yet replied to you, a bit of patience is required.   

OK, so you say it is nonsense, then please point out any errors in my latest short explanation?

There is no nonsense in that Mr C, stop being objective without considering the information.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 19:35:49
So it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.

So you don't understand but declare it nonsense?

No
I am saying that, if you don't explain it then it will make sense to nobody.
And that will mean it is nonsense.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 19:41:53
So it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.

So you don't understand but declare it nonsense?

No
I am saying that, if you don't explain it then it will make sense to nobody.
And that will mean it is nonsense.

I understand this, that is why I have a co-writer who hopefully can edit and put it better than me.  However, I think I have just explained it very well with my short explanation?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 20:49:07
However, I think I have just explained it very well with my short explanation?

Well, you are wrong.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:15:07
However, I think I have just explained it very well with my short explanation?

Well, you are wrong.
Dear Sir, I am still awaiting your explanation of your disapproval.   You have not explained your premise for argument of why my logical reasoning and explained facts fail .   You have neither shown any inconsistencies with my findings, compared to present information. 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:31:59
Well actually the stuff inside of an electron is space, the shell is likewise to itself.
Ignoring the fact that " the shell is likewise to itself."is incomprehensible, there's another problem.
Eelctrons don't have shells. They are points as far as any measurement is concerned.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:33:43
It is an atomic field of two opposite polarities a and b

You have yet to explain what an "atomic field" is, never mind explain what evidence there is for it.
And, much the same is true of your use of teh word polarity.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:35:06
Existing because they are in a n-field.
You have provided no evidence for the existence of this field.
Nor have you explained what it actually is, or does.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:36:21
the common factor being polarity, we only need to look at a and b.
Again, you have not explained what you mean by "polarity".
Your use of it rules out the conventional meanings.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:37:14
Well actually the stuff inside of an electron is space, the shell is likewise to itself.
Ignoring the fact that " the shell is likewise to itself."is incomprehensible, there's another problem.
Eelctrons don't have shells. They are points as far as any measurement is concerned.

If something has dimensions, it can be point like but cannot be a point.   An electron is a point like particle that the physics suggests , with a hollow core.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:39:34
All e-  ∈  {R} 
Does not make sense.
Electrons are a member of the set of subatomic particles, or the set of words derived from Greek or the set of very small things.
But they are not an element of of R3
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:40:30
the common factor being polarity, we only need to look at a and b.
Again, you have not explained what you mean by "polarity".
Your use of it rules out the conventional meanings.

A point like attraction or repulsion.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:40:47
If something has dimensions, it can be point like but cannot be a point.   An electron is a point like particle that the physics suggests , with a hollow core

No proof exists that it has dimensions- that is the point.
So there's no evidence to suggest a shell with a hollow core.
You made that  up.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:42:00
All e-  ∈  {R} 
Does not make sense.
Electrons are a member of the set of subatomic particles, or the set of words derived from Greek or the set of very small things.
But they are not an element of of R3

They occupy R so are an element of R  , R is our volume.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 21:42:50
If something has dimensions, it can be point like but cannot be a point.   An electron is a point like particle that the physics suggests , with a hollow core.

What experiment showed the electron to have a hollow core?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:43:39
the common factor being polarity, we only need to look at a and b.
Again, you have not explained what you mean by "polarity".
Your use of it rules out the conventional meanings.

A point like attraction or repulsion.
If you go through your posts and replace "polarity" by " "A point like attraction or repulsion. "
They still don't mean anything.
Apart from anything else, the phrase itself is meaningless.
An a traction has a direction a point does not.
So an attraction can not be point like.


I'm not finding any difficulty in backing up my claim that you have been posting nonsense.
How are you doing with backing up your claim that it is very well explained?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:44:57
They occupy R so are an element of R  , R is our volume.

No the things that are members of R3 are essentially locations rather than physical things.
I may be in Birmingham, but I am not Birmingham.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:45:50
If something has dimensions, it can be point like but cannot be a point.   An electron is a point like particle that the physics suggests , with a hollow core

No proof exists that it has dimensions- that is the point.
So there's no evidence to suggest a shell with a hollow core.
You made that  up.

Dear Sir , I have not made anything up.  In a R space that had a volume element, an inner product that was constructed of likewise electrostatic points, all the points would expand to leave a hollow void in the core.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:47:28
Now the only reason the radius remains is because of the rod.
There is no circle or curve in the diagram to have a radius.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:48:30
They occupy R so are an element of R  , R is our volume.

No the things that are members of R3 are essentially locations rather than physical things.
I may be in Birmingham, but I am not Birmingham.
You are not far from me, I live M6 North from you, Stoke. 


Do you agree there is physical things in a R space?   
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 21:51:06
Now the only reason the radius remains is because of the rod.
There is no circle or curve in the diagram to have a radius.
You are correct, I should of said distance or length.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:51:11
likewise electrostatic points
Again- gibberish.
What do you actually mean by this?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 21:52:11
In a R space that had a volume element, an inner product that was constructed of likewise electrostatic points, all the points would expand to leave a hollow void in the core.

What experiment demonstrated that electrons have volume?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:54:18
Do you agree there is physical things in a R space?   
It's a matter of definition but no.
I'm not in a mathematical construction. My location can be treated mathematically as a point in R3.
Also the world in which we live is curved so it's not properly mapped by R3.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2018 21:55:24
None of the counterpoint you have raised has been valid.
Your suggestion is full of holes.
You should abandon it.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:03:00
likewise electrostatic points
Again- gibberish.
What do you actually mean by this?
A point like particle  of electrostatic energy  that has a pole.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:05:11
If something has dimensions, it can be point like but cannot be a point.   An electron is a point like particle that the physics suggests , with a hollow core.

What experiment showed the electron to have a hollow core?
The physics shows it,  I do not know of any existing experiment.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:06:37
None of the counterpoint you have raised has been valid.
Your suggestion is full of holes.
You should abandon it.
That would be your opinion and not what the objective physics shows us.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 22:07:48
The physics shows it

What physics shows it?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:11:26
The physics shows it

What physics shows it?
Coulombs law .
Newtons third law.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 22:12:44
Coulombs law .
Newtons third law.

How do these prove anything about whether subatomic particles have volume or not?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:17:08
Coulombs law .
Newtons third law.

How do these prove anything about whether subatomic particles have volume or not?
Sorry I thought you meant gravity, I got my wires crossed.   In answer to your question, Coulombs law.

It shows that a likewise polarity, point like particle , all points would be repulsive points, the only outcome can be a hollow centre, giving the point like particle dimensions.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: petelamana on 27/02/2018 22:17:33
After a cursory read of this thread I do see where some promising concepts can be developed.  I believe Thebox is having difficulty explaining his premise and supporting information.  Perhaps instead of condemning Thebox's endeavor we, as a collective, could try to help him iron out, or correct, his idea?  Isn't that the higher road to learning?

Kyptid's most recent question...
 on: Today at 05:12:44 pm  Quote (selected)
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 05:11:26 pm
Coulombs law .
Newtons third law.

How do these prove anything about whether subatomic particles have volume or not?

...is spot on.  Good point.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 22:19:03
It shows that a likewise polarity, point like particle , all points would be repulsive points, the only outcome can be a hollow centre, giving the point like particle dimensions.

What experiment has demonstrated that electrons are composed of multiple points?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: petelamana on 27/02/2018 22:25:45
I cannot think of any experiment that does show electrons are composed of multipoints, however that being said...

Is it possible for electrons to by composed of multiple points?  If so, how would that be either tested, or expounded upon?

I am not a particle physicist, by any stretch.  However, could the "points" be subatomic particles that are the result of an electron - electron collision?

I'm trying to think outside the box, no pun intended.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:28:13
It shows that a likewise polarity, point like particle , all points would be repulsive points, the only outcome can be a hollow centre, giving the point like particle dimensions.

What experiment has demonstrated that electrons are composed of multiple points?
It does not need an experiment , a point is 0 dimension, so for something to exist and have dimension, it has to be surrounding points of a point.

0 point + 0 point = r=1x

4/3π(1x) = 3d

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 22:31:45
I cannot think of any experiment that does show electrons are composed of multipoints, however that being said...

Is it possible for electrons to by composed of multiple points?

Yes. That is called the "preon model".

Quote
If so, how would that be either tested, or expounded upon?

Scattering experiments. If electrons are made up of three preons, then sufficiently energetic collider experiments would demonstrate that there are three objects that other particles are scattering off of in electrons instead of just one. That is how we experimentally determined that protons are composed of quarks. So far, no evidence for scattering due to preons has showed up.

Quote
It does not need an experiment , a point is 0 dimension, so for something to exist and have dimension, it has to be surrounding points of a point.

0 point + 0 point = r=1x

4/3π(1x) = 3d

What experiment demonstrated that electrons have dimension?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:41:45
What experiment demonstrated that electrons have dimension?
The maths demonstrated that an electron has to  have dimension to exist.  The electron can not be made of any sort of opposite points either, or the result would be attractive to other electrons.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 22:44:41
The maths demonstrated that an electron has to  have dimension to exist.

Please provide an outside link to the math you speak of. In other words, I'm not asking for math you made up, but math that is well-supported by the existing physics community.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:51:23
The maths demonstrated that an electron has to  have dimension to exist.

Please provide an outside link to the math you speak of. In other words, I'm not asking for math you made up, but math that is well-supported by the existing physics community.
I think I used the correct formula for a sphere and the correct maths to add up a length.   It is supported math. 

If the electron has a volume and all points of the volume were the same pole causing an expansion of itself, would this model not work to retain the form of the electron?

 [ Invalid Attachment ]



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 22:53:26
If the electron has a volume

We've already been through this: what experiment has demonstrated that electrons are spheres or have volume? I'm concerned that you might be working yourself into a circular argument.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 27/02/2018 22:56:34
If the electron has a volume

We've already been through this: what experiment has demonstrated that electrons are spheres or have volume? I'm concerned that you might be working yourself into a circular argument.
I will give you an experiment, emit some electrons directed at some electrons.   

Quote
Colliding two electrons will always produce two scattered electrons, and it may sometimes produce some photons from initial and final state radiation


If they had no volume there would be nothing to collide.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 23:49:14
I will give you an experiment, emit some electrons directed at some electrons.   

Quote
Colliding two electrons will always produce two scattered electrons, and it may sometimes produce some photons from initial and final state radiation


If they had no volume there would be nothing to collide.

Electrons are not like little rubber balls that bounce off of each other. Electrons interact with other electrons via the fields that they possess. They themselves do not need any actual volume or size in order to interact with each other in this way.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2018 06:39:49
An electron has mass, about 10-30 kg. If it had zero diameter it  would have infinite density and thus behave as a charged black hole. This would be a handy tool: you could steer it around in space (thanks to its charge) and it would mop up all the residual dust, dangerous asteroids and expired satellites with its gravitational field. Indeed you wouldn't need to do any "steering" as the Van Allen belts conveniently consist of electrons whizzing around in the earth's magnetic field.

So the next time you hear of a mysterious disappearance in the Bermuda Triangle or your washing machine, blame it on a Kryptid electron - what a perfect name!
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 28/02/2018 16:19:52
An electron has mass, about 10-30 kg. If it had zero diameter it  would have infinite density and thus behave as a charged black hole. This would be a handy tool: you could steer it around in space (thanks to its charge) and it would mop up all the residual dust, dangerous asteroids and expired satellites with its gravitational field. Indeed you wouldn't need to do any "steering" as the Van Allen belts conveniently consist of electrons whizzing around in the earth's magnetic field.

So the next time you hear of a mysterious disappearance in the Bermuda Triangle or your washing machine, blame it on a Kryptid electron - what a perfect name!

Well there is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron)

It's also worth mentioning that a black hole electron would have the same gravitational field strength as an electron of very small but finite size at any given distance from it (in other words, extremely tiny for most practical distances). So no, they're not going to be sucking up asteroids or satellites or whatever.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2018 17:30:10
It's also worth mentioning that a black hole electron would have the same gravitational field strength as an electron of very small but finite size at any given distance from it
True, but an electron of zero radius still has a charge, so it can attract a positron or neutral particle to any value of r you wish, including r = 0. At this point the gravitational field is infinite. Now a positron has all the properties of an electron except for a positive charge, so the "black hole electron" can slurp up positron to produce a boson with mass 2me, r = 0, g = ∞, and no charge. It's only a matter of time before this meets another boson....and the universe gradually disappears.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2018 18:29:23
Is it possible for electrons to by composed of multiple points? 
No
Because the experiments designed to look for that would have shown it (at least on the scale they were designed to look)
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2018 18:31:06
I will give you an experiment, emit some electrons directed at some electrons.   
That experiment is done all the time.
What outcomes would you predict that differ from what established physics predicts?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2018 18:32:39
If they had no volume there would be nothing to collide.
The electrons don't collide.
However their electrostatic fields interact.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/02/2018 18:33:12
After a cursory read of this thread I do see where some promising concepts can be developed. 
Like what?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 28/02/2018 21:18:22
True, but an electron of zero radius still has a charge, so it can attract a positron or neutral particle to any value of r you wish, including r = 0. At this point the gravitational field is infinite. Now a positron has all the properties of an electron except for a positive charge, so the "black hole electron" can slurp up positron to produce a boson with mass 2me, r = 0, g = ∞, and no charge. It's only a matter of time before this meets another boson....and the universe gradually disappears.

Such a neutral black hole would be free to undergo Hawking decay without violating charge conservation, and it would be extremely short-lived due to its minute size. It would produce photons with a total energy equal to its mass. Heck, you could probably parallel this with the way that we already know electrons and positrons interact: by producing photons. The extremely short life span of subatomic black holes would be one barrier to prevent them from consuming the Universe. No doubt our understanding of such small black holes is limited anyway, because quantum gravity effects would become very important for them.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: alancalverd on 28/02/2018 21:45:48
Coincidentally, the Simpsons episode shown tonight on Channel 4 in the UK involved the Lisa Simpson Collider making a tiny black hole that did indeed swallow the universe.

You read it here first, folks!
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 01/03/2018 06:12:02
I have stayed away for 24 hrs to refresh my brain, my new abstract, what do you think?


The mechanics of gravitational force.

Author - S.P. Leese

Spring 2018


Abstract:

 On the premise  that   all signed electrostatic fields are attracted to neutral signed electrostatic fields,   this paper  proposes a theory that is intended  to evidentially show a normalising that  is, ''Neutral is attracted to Neutral''.   A natural phenomenon that may explain the gravity process.
First will be shown is that  the formation of   zero point energy (ZPE) is a two part binary construction.   The ZPE  failing to retain form without the simultaneous  co-existence of an opposite sign.
 A  co-existence that  shall be established of opposite signs ,  simultaneously occupying the same geometric point of a  R real coordinate space,  to form a point particle with point mass.
Additionally, we shall establish plausible conceptual considerations  of the point particles emitted field.  Finally shall be conclusions , based on the provided information of the paper.



Introduction.

The importance of this paper is to answer the question,  what is the underlying mechanics of the gravitational force?   Many great minds have considered possibilities, Newton's  1687 discovery pioneering the notions on this mysterious force.   Then later in time,  Einstein's theory of  relativity explaining the force to be  a distortion of space or more precisely, space-time.   
However, although their contributions are greatly appreciated, nobody so far as answered what the underlying mechanics are,  of the gravitational force.   Thus leading me to research the information available, to try to discover an answer.


Definitions.


Before any discussion can meaningfully continue several definitions must be preliminary accepted.

1. A R real coordinate space shall be labelled  [a]

2. [a] is understood to be a volume of geometric positional points

3. Each point within [a] has a standard dimensional size asymptotically equivalent to zero.

4. That i and j  are opposite signed electrostatic charge polarity.

5. Let i = positive ZPE

6. let j = negative ZPE

7. A neutral polarity field shall be labelled  a N-field

8. A neutral polarity point particle shall be labelled a N-field particle

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2018 20:05:17
a volume of geometric positional points
Points have no volume by definition.
positive ZPE
You need to define that too.
A neutral polarity field shall be labelled  a N-field
You need to explain what you mean by "A neutral polarity field".
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: alancalverd on 01/03/2018 20:24:41
On the premise  that   all signed electrostatic fields are attracted to neutral signed electrostatic fields,
Wrong.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 01/03/2018 21:35:29
On the premise  that   all signed electrostatic fields are attracted to neutral signed electrostatic fields,
Wrong.
Really?  You are saying a positive and negative electrostatic charge is not attracted to neutral things? 

Please explain, I must have entered a new dimension in some sort of parallel universe where the laws of physics have changed.

Quote
Any charged object - whether positively charged or negatively charged - will have an attractive interaction with a neutral object. Positively charged objects and neutral objects attract each other; and negatively charged objects and neutral objects attract each other.

Do my eyes deceive me?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 01/03/2018 21:39:40
Points have no volume by definition.
3. Each point within [a] has a standard dimensional size asymptotically equivalent to zero.

Number 3 already says that.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 01/03/2018 21:41:13
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 06:12:02
positive ZPE
You need to define that too.
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 06:12:02
A neutral polarity field shall be labelled  a N-field
You need to explain what you mean by "A neutral polarity field".
A ZPE is described in the abstract, a neutral polarity field is obviously a field that is not positive or negative .
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2018 22:14:59
a neutral polarity field is obviously a field that is not positive or negative .
Can you explain what you mean by a field being positive  (or negative)?
A field exists round a charge bu that field does not have a charge.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2018 22:16:43
Points have no volume by definition.
3. Each point within [a] has a standard dimensional size asymptotically equivalent to zero.

Number 3 already says that.
I noticed that.
It implies that not only is 2 wrong, but it is contradicted by 3
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/03/2018 22:20:24
A ZPE is described in the abstract
The abstract says it's a zero point energy.
But you are clearly not using either of the accepted  uses of that phrase so, once again, please define it.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 01/03/2018 22:52:25
A ZPE is described in the abstract
The abstract says it's a zero point energy.
But you are clearly not using either of the accepted  uses of that phrase so, once again, please define it.
Quote
Zero-point energy (ZPE) or ground state energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have.


I explain the electrostatic charge is the zpe.

4. That i and j  are opposite signed electrostatic charge polarity.

5. Let i = positive ZPE

6. let j = negative ZPE

Do I need to change 4 to : 4. That i and j  are opposite signed electrostatic charge polarity of ZPE
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 11:23:00
I explain the electrostatic charge is the zpe.
No
You stated that the charge is the ZPE, but that doesn't make sense.
Energy isn't the same as charge- different units etc.

Just saying something doesn't make it true.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 11:27:46
I explain the electrostatic charge is the zpe.
No
You stated that the charge is the ZPE, but that doesn't make sense.
Energy isn't the same as charge- different units etc.

Just saying something doesn't make it true.

No, I stated the electrostatic is the ZPE, charge/polarity a property of the electrostatic .

4. That i and j  are opposite signed electrostatic charge polarity of ZPE


Should I put


4. That i and j  are ZPE's with opposite signs, in the form of electrostatic energy.


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 11:40:19
I will give you an experiment, emit some electrons directed at some electrons.   

Quote
Colliding two electrons will always produce two scattered electrons, and it may sometimes produce some photons from initial and final state radiation


If they had no volume there would be nothing to collide.

Electrons are not like little rubber balls that bounce off of each other. Electrons interact with other electrons via the fields that they possess. They themselves do not need any actual volume or size in order to interact with each other in this way.
The field they possess is the electron in my notion, so yes they are little rubber balls but are only a shell.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 13:46:27
The mechanics of gravitational force.

Author - S.P. Leese

Spring 2018

Abstract:

On the premise  that   all signed electrostatic fields are attracted to neutral signed electrostatic fields,   this paper  proposes a theory that is intended  to evidentially show a normalising that  is, ''Neutral is attracted to Neutral''.   A natural phenomenon that may explain the gravity process.
First will be shown is that  the formation of   zero point energy (ZPE) is a two part binary construction.   The ZPE  failing to retain form without the simultaneous  co-existence of an opposite sign.
 A  co-existence that  shall be established of opposite signs ,  simultaneously occupying the same geometric point of a  R real coordinate space,  to form a point particle with point mass.
Additionally, we shall establish plausible conceptual considerations  of the point particles emitted field.  Finally shall be conclusions , based on the provided information of the paper.


Introduction.

The importance of this paper is to answer the question,  what is the underlying mechanics of the gravitational force?   Many great minds have considered possibilities, Newton's  1687 discovery pioneering the notions on this mysterious force.   Then later in time,  Einstein's theory of  relativity explaining the force to be  a distortion of space or more precisely, space-time.   
However, although their contributions are greatly appreciated, nobody so far as answered what the underlying mechanics are,  of the gravitational force.   Thus leading me to research and question  the present information available, looking for the answer.  I will present several chapters on various things , that lead the way  to my final conclusion .


Definitions.


Before any meaningfully discussion can  continue , several definitions must be  preliminary accepted.

1.  A R real coordinate space shall be labelled  [a]

2.  [a] is understood to be a volume of real space

3.  Each point within [a] has a standard dimensional of zero.

4.  That i and j are ZPE's (zero point energy)

5.  That i and j are electrostatic energy of opposite  signs

5.  Let i = negative sign

6.  Let j = positive sign

7.   A  field that is measured to be neutral in charge,  shall be labelled a N-field

8.  A  point particle  that is measured to be neutral in charge , shall be labelled a N-field particle


Chapter 1  -  Before the Big Bang there was nothing, not even space.

Let us be clear in our minds what we mean by space.  Space is a vast expanse of nothing,  it has no physicality.   Space does not age or change, things change relative to space, age and position  change relative to space.  Space being the absolute reference frame of comparison, a constant 0 value that we can compare things to in measurement.  In example let us consider a train carriage in respect to the embankment, the train moves in respect to the embankment, the embankment has relative 0 velocity.  However relative to space, the embankment and the train carriage are moving through space.  Now let us consider a clock on the embankment, the embankment, the train carriage and the clock all age in accordance with the measure of their own clock.  However they have all  aged relative to the 0 change of space.  Thus leading to my first question.

Before the big bang there was nothing, could this nothing  be  space?   

It would not seem logical that no space existed, for an event to happen it would almost certainly need a space to happen in.  There is no apparent evidence that space can be created or destroyed, so maybe in the beginning there was just space.  Space could certainly be considered in being  nothing ,  a dimensional volume of emptiness.   Without light the space would seem to have no dimensions, point sources allowing us to perceive spacial distance.  Without these point sources , space would  just be visual ''blackness'', as if nothing.  The thought of 0 dimensions always leads to in one's mind, a surrounding darkness of a point .   This darkness being a limitation that is, without light.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09
No, I stated the electrostatic is the ZPE, charge/polarity a property of the electrostatic .
Did you read that through before posting it?

The field they possess is the electron in my notion, so yes they are little rubber balls but are only a shell.
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 14:06:04
No, I stated the electrostatic is the ZPE, charge/polarity a property of the electrostatic .
Did you read that through before posting it?

The field they possess is the electron in my notion, so yes they are little rubber balls but are only a shell.
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
An electron has a diameter, therefore is has a volume. Therefore all points of the volume are likewise in repulsive force to each other. Outcome is an electron shell that is hollow.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38
An electron has a diameter
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 14:11:47
An electron has a diameter
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 02/03/2018 15:15:12
An electron has a diameter
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
What about the wind?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 02/03/2018 17:33:46
If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.

The electromagnetic and weak nuclear fields of an electron have volume. So by your own reasoning, that's sufficient to explain why they can exert force on other things. The electron itself need not have any volume.

Even if electrons do have a finite size and volume, it does not follow that they are composite particles made up of smaller entities that can repel each other. One of your problems is that you think of quantum objects as if they were macroscopic objects like gas clouds. A gas cloud is made up of small, tangible particles capable of interacting with each other. They can move closer to each other or farther apart. So far, there is no evidence that electrons are made of anything smaller than themselves. So such an analogy is faulty from the get-go.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 20:58:04
An electron has a diameter
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
What about the wind?
You mean air travelling at  a velocity don't you?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 21:02:32
If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.

The electromagnetic and weak nuclear fields of an electron have volume. So by your own reasoning, that's sufficient to explain why they can exert force on other things. The electron itself need not have any volume.

Even if electrons do have a finite size and volume, it does not follow that they are composite particles made up of smaller entities that can repel each other. One of your problems is that you think of quantum objects as if they were macroscopic objects like gas clouds. A gas cloud is made up of small, tangible particles capable of interacting with each other. They can move closer to each other or farther apart. So far, there is no evidence that electrons are made of anything smaller than themselves. So such an analogy is faulty from the get-go.
Imagine an electron to be made up of repulsive points and it stretching from the inside out.  A bit like a balloon inflating but without the air.  The inner walls of the ''balloon'' being repulsive .  The ''skin'' of the ''balloon, stretched.

In comparison a hollow rubber ball.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 02/03/2018 22:31:33
Imagine an electron to be made up of repulsive points and it stretching from the inside out.  A bit like a balloon inflating but without the air.  The inner walls of the ''balloon'' being repulsive .  The ''skin'' of the ''balloon, stretched.

In comparison a hollow rubber ball.

There you go with analogies to macroscopic objects again. There are no experiments demonstrating that electrons are made up of "repulsive points" or anything smaller than themselves. There are no experiments that demonstrate individual electrons behave like rubber.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 02/03/2018 23:05:06
Imagine an electron to be made up of repulsive points and it stretching from the inside out.  A bit like a balloon inflating but without the air.  The inner walls of the ''balloon'' being repulsive .  The ''skin'' of the ''balloon, stretched.

In comparison a hollow rubber ball.

There you go with analogies to macroscopic objects again. There are no experiments demonstrating that electrons are made up of "repulsive points" or anything smaller than themselves. There are no experiments that demonstrate individual electrons behave like rubber.
You are correct in what you are saying, but there is reasons to believe that my notions are a possibility.   I did not make my statement based on nothing.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 02/03/2018 23:33:51
I did not make my statement based on nothing.

You make your statements based on unsupported assumptions about the properties of electrons, which makes them suspect.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 08:39:56
I did not make my statement based on nothing.

You make your statements based on unsupported assumptions about the properties of electrons, which makes them suspect.
The notion is not supported in the way of vigorous experiment, the notion is supported by actions and the laws of forces etc.  That may describe my model of the electron and proton, to be a physical fact.

Having an electron,  being a physical particle of one whole,  is like saying a balloon does not inflate if you inflate it.   

I also do not believe there is such a thing as a point particle having 0 dimensions, it would not exist so therefore must have a really micro volume to exist.

0 dimension in my mind is 0 existence and a 0 point property of space.

Before the BB there was nothing, so a point particle can not be 0 dimensions because that would be a prequel to the big bang.

Compare versions.


* compare.jpg (38.79 kB . 731x461 - viewed 2143 times)


Now in your version, which it must be  bigger than 0 to exist, it has no other option but to form my version.

Your version only having mass to protons, repulsing other electrons, shows that your version can not be made of opposite pole points, or it would have mass to other electrons.






Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 09:04:37
My N-field particle is my atomic model of two opposite pole energies combined that forms a physical particle.


* i,j.jpg (21.95 kB . 731x461 - viewed 2141 times)


That is why the little blighters are so hard to separate.  They are merged fields and all points of the field are occupied simultaneously by opposite signs.

E = (i+j)c   

Added -  The centre point of this sphere design would be an absolute perfect equilibrium.  A negative, positive or neutral charge in the centre of this would be absolutely stationary.


Because F1 = F2 and all the force vector , linear field lines would be isotropic.

As I have mentioned before a critical balanced system.,

added- I thought you might like to see this of my model.


That is also what time looks like.














































































Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 11:37:26
An electron has a diameter
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
What about the wind?
You mean air travelling at  a velocity don't you?
People know what the wind is - why do you give such a meaningless, convoluted definition? How does it actually relate to the point?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 11:41:31
An electron has a diameter
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
What about the wind?
You mean air travelling at  a velocity don't you?
People know what the wind is - why do you give such a meaningless, convoluted definition? How does it actually relate to the point?
You asked about the wind, the answer I gave was related to what you asked, unless you meant something else.  But if you are writing a question you did not mean to ask, I can only give the answer to what you asked.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 11:43:52
What about the wind? 

What is your what question?


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 11:52:55
An electron has a diameter
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
What about the wind?
You mean air travelling at  a velocity don't you?
People know what the wind is - why do you give such a meaningless, convoluted definition? How does it actually relate to the point?
You asked about the wind, the answer I gave was related to what you asked, unless you meant something else.  But if you are writing a question you did not mean to ask, I can only give the answer to what you asked.
You didnt give an answer, just some some convoluted word salad that you think makes you sound smart. It doesnt.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 11:55:26
An electron has a diameter
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
What about the wind?
You mean air travelling at  a velocity don't you?
People know what the wind is - why do you give such a meaningless, convoluted definition? How does it actually relate to the point?
You asked about the wind, the answer I gave was related to what you asked, unless you meant something else.  But if you are writing a question you did not mean to ask, I can only give the answer to what you asked.
You didnt give an answer, just some some convoluted word salad that you think makes you sound smart. It doesnt.
I gave an answer for the vague question you give, you said ''what about the wind? ''   

I was talking about physicality so assumed you meant something to do with the winds physical present, hence my answer about air.   If you didn't mean that, what were you asking?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 12:39:02
An electron has a diameter
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
What about the wind?
You mean air travelling at  a velocity don't you?
People know what the wind is - why do you give such a meaningless, convoluted definition? How does it actually relate to the point?
You asked about the wind, the answer I gave was related to what you asked, unless you meant something else.  But if you are writing a question you did not mean to ask, I can only give the answer to what you asked.
You didnt give an answer, just some some convoluted word salad that you think makes you sound smart. It doesnt.
I gave an answer for the vague question you give, you said ''what about the wind? ''   

I was talking about physicality so assumed you meant something to do with the winds physical present, hence my answer about air.   If you didn't mean that, what were you asking?
It was not a vague question in view of your preceding comment.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2018 12:42:40
Imagine an electron to be made up of repulsive points and it stretching from the inside out.  A bit like a balloon inflating but without the air.  The inner walls of the ''balloon'' being repulsive .  The ''skin'' of the ''balloon, stretched.
Reminds me of this bit from the hitchhikers guide.
"Yeah, well, Forget that. I mean do you know how the universe began for a kick off?

ARTHUR:
Well probably not

FORD:
Alright imagine this: you get a large round bath made of ebony.

ARTHUR:
Where from? Harrods was destroyed by the Vogons.

FORD:
Well it doesnt matter -

ARTHUR:
So you keep saying!

FORD:
No, No listen. Just imagine that youve got this ebony bath, right? And its conical.

ARTHUR:
Conical? What kind of bath is -

FORD:
No, no, shh, shhh, its, its, its conical okay? So what you do, you fill it with fine white sand right? Or sugar, or anything like that. And when its full, you pull the plug out and it all just twirls down out of the plug hole but the thing is

ARTHUR:
Why?

FORD:
No, the clever thing is that you film it happening. You get a movie camera from somewhere and actually film it. But then you thread the film in the projector backwards.

ARTHUR:
Backwards?

FORD:
Yeah, neat you see. So what happens is you sit and you watch it and then everything appears to swirl upwards, out of the plug hole and fill the bath amazing.

ARTHUR:
And thats how the universe began?

FORD:
No. But its a marvellous way to relax. "
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 03/03/2018 15:16:29
The notion is not supported in the way of vigorous experiment, the notion is supported by actions and the laws of forces etc.  That may describe my model of the electron and proton, to be a physical fact.

You don't know that electrons are elastic. You don't know that electrons are made up of anything smaller than themselves.

Quote
Having an electron,  being a physical particle of one whole,  is like saying a balloon does not inflate if you inflate it.

What is "a physical particle of one whole"?

Quote
I also do not believe there is such a thing as a point particle having 0 dimensions, it would not exist so therefore must have a really micro volume to exist.

I'm afraid that's just your philosophical notion. Even if it turned out that electrons are not points, they still don't have to have volume. String theory posits that they are one-dimensional strings, for example. One-dimensional objects don't have volume either.

Quote
0 dimension in my mind is 0 existence and a 0 point property of space.

What is in your mind isn't necessarily true of reality.

Quote
Before the BB there was nothing

How do you know?

Quote
so a point particle can not be 0 dimensions because that would be a prequel to the big bang.

Major non-sequitur.

Quote
Compare versions.

[attachment=0,msg535140]

Now in your version, which it must be  bigger than 0 to exist

You don't know that. Relativity can model points (i.e. singularities) and posits that they do have an effect on other objects, so having zero dimensions would not preclude something from existing (at least in principle).

Quote
it has no other option but to form my version.

Wrong. If electrons are not made of anything smaller than themselves, then there is nothing there that can do any stretching. There would not be discrete entities inside of the electron that are repelling each other. You're using the mistaken rubber/gas analogy again.

Quote
Your version only having mass to protons, repulsing other electrons, shows that your version can not be made of opposite pole points, or it would have mass to other electrons.

This is nearly incomprehensible. What is "mass to protons" or "mass to other electrons" supposed to mean? Mass is mass.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 03/03/2018 16:06:05
Having an electron,  being a physical particle of one whole,  is like saying a balloon does not inflate if you inflate it.

What is "a physical particle of one whole"?
One that  is adjoined

Quote
Before the BB there was nothing

How do you know?

I define nothing as space. So before the big bang there was space.

Quote
Your version only having mass to protons, repulsing other electrons, shows that your version can not be made of opposite pole points, or it would have mass to other electrons.

This is nearly incomprehensible. What is "mass to protons" or "mass to other electrons" supposed to mean? Mass is mass.

sorry, just replace the word mass with gravity

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2018 16:09:24
One that  is adjoined
That's still meaningless.
I define nothing as space. So before the big bang there was space.
Why not use the right definition in order to reduce confusion?
sorry, just replace the word mass with gravity
t's still nonsense after you do that.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 04/03/2018 12:51:35
Chapter 1  -  Before the Big Bang there was nothing, not even time and space.

Let us be clear in our minds what we mean by space.  Space is a vast expanse of nothing,  it has no physicality.   Space does not age or change, things change relative to space, age or position being a change relative to space.  Space being the absolute reference frame of comparison, a constant 0 value that we can compare things to in measurement.  In example let us consider a train carriage in respect to the embankment, the train moves in respect to the embankment, the embankment has relative 0 velocity.  However relative to space, the embankment and the train carriage are moving through space.  Now let us consider a clock on the embankment, the embankment, the train carriage and the clock all age in accordance with the measure of their own clock.  However they have all  aged relative to the 0 change of space.  Thus leading to my first question.

Before the big bang there was nothing, could this nothing  be  space?   

It would not seem logical that no space existed, for an event to happen it would almost certainly need a space to happen in.  There is no apparent evidence that space can be created or destroyed, so maybe in the beginning there was just space.  Space could certainly be considered in being  nothing ,  a dimensional volume of emptiness.   Without light the space would seem to have no dimensions, point sources allowing us to perceive spacial distance.  Without these point sources , space would  just be visual ''blackness'', as if nothing.  The thought of 0 dimensions always leads to in one's mind, a surrounding darkness.   This darkness being a limitation that is without light.

Let us be clear in our minds of what is time?


  I define time to be  :   A Quantifiable duration of existence in an absolute space.


The transparency of  space-time allowing for measurable existences, the transparency allowing for the apparently of ageing compared to the absolute nothing space.


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 04/03/2018 13:03:47
I define nothing as space. So before the big bang there was space.
Why not use the right definition in order to reduce confusion?
I did define the right version, nothing is not the same as 0 dimensions. i.e whats in that box? nothing.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2018 14:29:42
et us be clear in our minds what we mean by space.  Space is a vast expanse of nothing,  it has no physicality.   Space does not age or change,
Space changes.
It becomes curved if you put mass in it.

Other stuff you have posted is equally obviously wrong.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 04/03/2018 14:54:55
et us be clear in our minds what we mean by space.  Space is a vast expanse of nothing,  it has no physicality.   Space does not age or change,
Space changes.
It becomes curved if you put mass in it.

Other stuff you have posted is equally obviously wrong.

Something else you do  not understand I see about the curvature of fields in space.   Spacial fields have special mass.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2018 17:59:49
Spacial fields have special mass.
Yes and this is a special thread.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 13:02:36
If the electron has a volume

We've already been through this: what experiment has demonstrated that electrons are spheres or have volume? I'm concerned that you might be working yourself into a circular argument.
If electrons independently exist of the atom, then that demonstrates the electrons are spherical and have a volume.   The reason for this is the objective physics I have demonstrated.    It is not a belief of mine,  the physics is suggestive to the very possibility of this .

I do not think objectively that a point particle could exist, a point space provable but not a point particle.


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 13:11:28
All neutral atoms are attracted to neutral atoms, all cations are attracted to neutral atoms, all anions are attracted to neutral atoms,  like it or not this does explain gravity mechanism and I am right .

The strong nuclear force is the entanglement of n-fields, the emitted field of the atom (N-field particle).



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 18/03/2018 14:17:23
If electrons independently exist of the atom, then that demonstrates the electrons are spherical and have a volume. The reason for this is the objective physics I have demonstrated.    It is not a belief of mine,  the physics is suggestive to the very possibility of this .

Your argument hinges on electrons having particular properties which you have not demonstrated that they have (such as consisting of smaller components that are capable of repelling each other or elasticity).

Quote
I do not think objectively that a point particle could exist, a point space provable but not a point particle.

Constantly injecting the word "objective" into your arguments does not give them any extra strength. Just because you don't understand how a point particle could exist doesn't mean they cannot. Even if they can't, that wouldn't rule out particles as one-dimensional strings.

Quote
All neutral atoms are attracted to neutral atoms, all cations are attracted to neutral atoms, all anions are attracted to neutral atoms,  like it or not this does explain gravity mechanism and I am right .

You can't declare that until a confirmatory experiment demonstrates it.

Quote
The strong nuclear force is the entanglement of n-fields, the emitted field of the atom (N-field particle).


What is an entanglement of n-fields?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 14:21:40
You can't declare that until a confirmatory experiment demonstrates it.
Drop any object, confirmed,

Rub a balloon on your hair and stick it to a wall, confirmed.


added- The balloon falls to the ground when neutral but once charged sticks to the wall.  Proof.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 14:24:16
What is an entanglement of n-fields?

Atomic field a+b have ''clamps'' on other atomic fields a+b

They bond in the outer ''shell layers'' where the magnitude is weak (less dense according to the inverse).
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 18/03/2018 14:30:25
You can't declare that until a confirmatory experiment demonstrates it.
Drop any object, confirmed,

Rub a balloon on your hair and stick it to a wall, confirmed.


added- The balloon falls to the ground when neutral but once charged sticks to the wall.  Proof.

That does not demonstrate that the force which pulls the balloon towards the Earth is the same as the one makes it stick to the wall. So no, a confirmatory experiment for your model has not yet been performed.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 14:45:49
You can't declare that until a confirmatory experiment demonstrates it.
Drop any object, confirmed,

Rub a balloon on your hair and stick it to a wall, confirmed.


added- The balloon falls to the ground when neutral but once charged sticks to the wall.  Proof.

That does not demonstrate that the force which pulls the balloon towards the Earth is the same as the one makes it stick to the wall. So no, a confirmatory experiment for your model has not yet been performed.

I think it does demonstrate the model and disagree with your disagreement on the physical facts and interpretation of the results.

Let us diagnose the experiment.


Do you agree?

1) The balloons atoms in a stable state remain electrically neutral

2) The balloons atoms in an excited state create a positive or negative electrostatic charge

3) The grounds and walls atoms in a steady state remain electrically Neutral

4)  The balloons atoms consist of a negative and a positive charge

5)  The balloons atoms negative charge is attracted to the grounds positive charge

6) The balloons atoms positive charge is attracted to the negative charge of the ground

7)  When the balloons atoms are in a state of excitement and become negative or positive electrostatic charged , the balloon can overcome the affects of the gravitation of the ground by being  more attracted to the gravitation of the wall.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 14:48:33
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 14:55:55
The applications of this very thought.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 18/03/2018 16:53:22
I think it does demonstrate the model and disagree with your disagreement on the physical facts and interpretation of the results.

It does no such thing. One thing you would need to do is demonstrate mathematically that the strength of attraction between two neutral objects matches the measured strength of gravity between the same two objects. If it turns out that your model predicts a different strength of attraction between neutral objects than that of gravity, then that would be a falsification of your model.

Quote
Do you agree?

1) The balloons atoms in a stable state remain electrically neutral

Define "stable state".

Quote
2) The balloons atoms in an excited state create a positive or negative electrostatic charge

No. That's not what the word "excited" means in atomic physics.

Quote
3) The grounds and walls atoms in a steady state remain electrically Neutral

Define "steady state".

Quote
4)  The balloons atoms consist of a negative and a positive charge

Yes.

Quote
5)  The balloons atoms negative charge is attracted to the grounds positive charge

No, because any such attraction is cancelled out by repulsion.

Quote
6) The balloons atoms positive charge is attracted to the negative charge of the ground

No, because any such attraction is cancelled out by repulsion.

Quote
7)  When the balloons atoms are in a state of excitement and become negative or positive electrostatic charged , the balloon can overcome the affects of the gravitation of the ground by being  more attracted to the gravitation of the wall.

No.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: PmbPhy on 18/03/2018 17:13:23
Quote from: Thebox
Surely I deserve some credit for this one?
Hardly. In the first place stating something as if it were true is nothing more than idle talk. An this case you never explain what an n-field is. In the second place its already been proposed and published.

There are no particles, there are only fields by Art Hobson, Am. J. Phys. 81 (3), March 2013, 211-223

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4789885

You can download and read it from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 17:17:10
Define "steady state".
Equal loss to gain

Quote
No, because any such attraction is cancelled out by repulsion

Yes because the attraction is cancelled out by the repulsion when the object hits the ground .  An object is not sucked into the ground or the wall.    The ground and wall pushes back.   


Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 18/03/2018 17:22:25
Quote from: Thebox
Surely I deserve some credit for this one?
Hardly. In the first place stating something as if it were true is nothing more than idle talk. An this case you never explain what an n-field is. In the second place its already been proposed and published.

There are no particles, there are only fields by Art Hobson, Am. J. Phys. 81 (3), March 2013, 211-223

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4789885

You can download and read it from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.

Quote
Are the fundamental constituents fields or particles?

They are field particles in my model.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 19/03/2018 00:33:32
Equal loss to gain

Loss and gain of what?

Quote
Yes because the attraction is cancelled out by the repulsion when the object hits the ground .  An object is not sucked into the ground or the wall.    The ground and wall pushes back.

So you're saying that the attraction between electrons/protons in two neutral objects is stronger than the repulsion between electrons/electrons and protons/protons in those same two neutral objects? That's the only way you can have a net attraction.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: PmbPhy on 19/03/2018 00:37:32
Quote from: Theboxi
Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.
Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?

You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 13:47:25
Quote from: Theboxi
Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.
Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?

You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.
I am wrong about what my own  notion states?   how strange


It is not a model?   That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.

Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 19/03/2018 14:48:25
Quote from: Theboxi
Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.
Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?

You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.
I am wrong about what my own  notion states?   how strange


It is not a model?   That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.

Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.


I think he means that your notion is wrong. You are right that it is a notion - not a model. It has absolutely no supporting evidence but your say so.
Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge and the scientific ideas presented are more than just 'a few words a few pics and a bit of math' . Mimicking Wikipedia is all very well, buit it does not make your notions any more scientific than me a cow because I can mimic a cow.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 14:53:03
Quote from: Theboxi
Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.
Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?

You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.
I am wrong about what my own  notion states?   how strange


It is not a model?   That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.

Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.


I think he means that your notion is wrong. You are right that it is a notion - not a model. It has absolutely no supporting evidence but your say so.
Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge and the scientific ideas presented are more than just 'a few words a few pics and a bit of math' . Mimicking Wikipedia is all very well, buit it does not make your notions any more scientific than me a cow because I can mimic a cow.
Ok, he does not  have to agree that I am correct, however , have you ever fixed an engine where you did not know the problem so had to do trial and error until you was left with one part to test?

This is very similar to what I did with gravity, the last part I gave science to test, it is the last part and I know it is correct because it is the last part.

So if science ignore this , this is their choice because I can't do anymore than I have done .

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: PmbPhy on 19/03/2018 15:11:59
Thebox - If you wanted to be banned why are you posting so often? Why not delete your account and move on if that's how you felt?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 19/03/2018 15:22:36
Quote from: Theboxi
Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.
Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?

You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.
I am wrong about what my own  notion states?   how strange


It is not a model?   That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.

Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.


I think he means that your notion is wrong. You are right that it is a notion - not a model. It has absolutely no supporting evidence but your say so.
Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge and the scientific ideas presented are more than just 'a few words a few pics and a bit of math' . Mimicking Wikipedia is all very well, buit it does not make your notions any more scientific than me a cow because I can mimic a cow.
Ok, he does not  have to agree that I am correct, however , have you ever fixed an engine where you did not know the problem so had to do trial and error until you was left with one part to test?

This is very similar to what I did with gravity, the last part I gave science to test, it is the last part and I know it is correct because it is the last part.

So if science ignore this , this is their choice because I can't do anymore than I have done .


No. I have fixed car engines on many occasions and approached it systematically using evidence from the symptoms of the fault to diagnose what was wrong. This is the opposite to your ignorant, slapdash approach to everything.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 15:25:03
Thebox - If you wanted to be banned why are you posting so often? Why not delete your account and move on if that's how you felt?
I love thinking, where else better to think other than about science on a science forum?

I like science Pm, I consider I am trying to help with my thinking by helping science to think a bit more about what they already know.   

Also it passes the time, I have little interest in other things, bored of life I suppose.



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 15:29:08
Quote from: Theboxi
Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.
Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?

You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.
I am wrong about what my own  notion states?   how strange


It is not a model?   That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.

Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.


I think he means that your notion is wrong. You are right that it is a notion - not a model. It has absolutely no supporting evidence but your say so.
Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge and the scientific ideas presented are more than just 'a few words a few pics and a bit of math' . Mimicking Wikipedia is all very well, buit it does not make your notions any more scientific than me a cow because I can mimic a cow.
Ok, he does not  have to agree that I am correct, however , have you ever fixed an engine where you did not know the problem so had to do trial and error until you was left with one part to test?

This is very similar to what I did with gravity, the last part I gave science to test, it is the last part and I know it is correct because it is the last part.

So if science ignore this , this is their choice because I can't do anymore than I have done .


No. I have fixed car engines on many occasions and approached it systematically using evidence from the symptoms of the fault to diagnose what was wrong. This is the opposite to your ignorant, slapdash approach to everything.
No it is not, it is the same approach, I use trial and error.  A while back I tried to explain gravity as negative is attracted to negative, I then went onto think more about the components of the engine, I stripped the engine down to the smallest of components and the only answer that was left is neutral is attracted to neutral.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 15:32:43
What is so difficult to understand?

An electron is attracted to a Proton making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral


The electron in N is still attracted to the Protons of other N's. 

The Proton in N is still attracted to the electrons of other N's. 


That simple.


N→←N

a+b→←a+b

(-e)+(+1e)→←(-e)+(+1e)

(q-)+(q+)→←(q-)+(q+)


It all has the same outcome.


added-  Don't forget velocity = radius not gravity.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 15:42:30
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2018 16:16:32
What is so difficult to understand?

An electron is attracted to a Proton making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral
The fact that "making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral " doesn't make sense.
Part of the reason is that an electron and a proton make a hydrogen atom- which isn't an engine.
Another part of the problem is that, as usual, you haven't properly defined your terms- what are a and b?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 16:22:01
What is so difficult to understand?

An electron is attracted to a Proton making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral
The fact that "making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral " doesn't make sense.
Part of the reason is that an electron and a proton make a hydrogen atom- which isn't an engine.
Another part of the problem is that, as usual, you haven't properly defined your terms- what are a and b?

a and b are obviously the electron and proton.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2018 16:48:37
But "an electron plus a proton = neutral" doesn't make sense  because neutral is an adjective, not a noun.
Also as I pointed out earlier, together them make a hydrogen atom, not "N" or an engine.

Until you learn to express yourself properly, you are wasting both your time and ours.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 16:50:52
But "an electron plus a proton = neutral" doesn't make sense  because neutral is an adjective, not a noun.
Also as I pointed out earlier, together them make a hydrogen atom, not "N" or an engine.

Until you learn to express yourself properly, you are wasting both your time and ours.
What?  words does not make'th science.


Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?


(a+b)2 = F=Neutron
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2018 16:54:04
It's not  a matter of what I want you to say.
It's a matter of, if you don't say it clearly, you might as well not bother to say it at all.

In particular, this doesn't help because in reality t goes the other way.
Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 16:59:39
It's not  a matter of what I want you to say.
It's a matter of, if you don't say it clearly, you might as well not bother to say it at all.

In particular, this doesn't help because in reality t goes the other way.
Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?

Well I said it clearly perhaps I could say it again

(-e) + (+1e) = n

(+1e) + (-e) = n

It is the same either way is it not?

(a+b=c)=(b+a=c)=(c=a+b)=(c=b+a)



Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 17:13:15
x-1+x+1=0

x+1+x-1=0
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2018 17:16:52
(-e) + (+1e) = n

OK, that's clear- but it's wrong.
In the real world
(-e) + (+1e) = a pair of gamma rays
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 19/03/2018 17:19:36
But "an electron plus a proton = neutral" doesn't make sense  because neutral is an adjective, not a noun.
Also as I pointed out earlier, together them make a hydrogen atom, not "N" or an engine.

Until you learn to express yourself properly, you are wasting both your time and ours.
What?  words does not make'th science.


Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?


(a+b)2 = F=Neutron
It doesn't matter what random characters or operators you put in, it is still nonsense and betrays your complete lack of knowledge of both science and maths. You ofrst stae
a+b=N

 then you state

(a+b)2 = F=Neutron

Randomly additng brackets or squaring the output does not mean it makes sense. You have also not explained why the output is squared or why you have multiplied a+b by 2.

Another thing - saying 'a and b are obviously the electron and proton' is only obvious to you.

Saying'What?  words does not make'th science' is more nonsense. Unless you can communicate an idea clearly how can you expect people to understand what you are talking about. If you dont want them to, why are you posting your nonsense all over the web?

Or... is it a case of you not wanting people to understand so that they cannot contradict you but you can keep posting stuff endlessly?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 17:24:05
(-e) + (+1e) = n

OK, that's clear- but it's wrong.
In the real world
(-e) + (+1e) = a pair of gamma rays

(q1)+(q2)=q0































Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 19/03/2018 17:27:01
But "an electron plus a proton = neutral" doesn't make sense  because neutral is an adjective, not a noun.
Also as I pointed out earlier, together them make a hydrogen atom, not "N" or an engine.

Until you learn to express yourself properly, you are wasting both your time and ours.
What?  words does not make'th science.


Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?


(a+b)2 = F=Neutron
It doesn't matter what random characters or operators you put in, it is still nonsense and betrays your complete lack of knowledge of both science and maths. You ofrst stae
a+b=N

 then you state

(a+b)2 = F=Neutron

Randomly additng brackets or squaring the output does not mean it makes sense. You have also not explained why the output is squared or why you have multiplied a+b by 2.

Another thing - saying 'a and b are obviously the electron and proton' is only obvious to you.

Saying'What?  words does not make'th science' is more nonsense. Unless you can communicate an idea clearly how can you expect people to understand what you are talking about. If you dont want them to, why are you posting your nonsense all over the web?

Or... is it a case of you not wanting people to understand so that they cannot contradict you but you can keep posting stuff endlessly?
The neutron is the combined product of an electron and a proton. The atom is the neutron.   The neutron can be a cation or an anion.

ok?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 19/03/2018 19:11:04
But "an electron plus a proton = neutral" doesn't make sense  because neutral is an adjective, not a noun.
Also as I pointed out earlier, together them make a hydrogen atom, not "N" or an engine.

Until you learn to express yourself properly, you are wasting both your time and ours.
What?  words does not make'th science.


Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?


(a+b)2 = F=Neutron
It doesn't matter what random characters or operators you put in, it is still nonsense and betrays your complete lack of knowledge of both science and maths. You ofrst stae
a+b=N

 then you state

(a+b)2 = F=Neutron

Randomly additng brackets or squaring the output does not mean it makes sense. You have also not explained why the output is squared or why you have multiplied a+b by 2.

Another thing - saying 'a and b are obviously the electron and proton' is only obvious to you.

Saying'What?  words does not make'th science' is more nonsense. Unless you can communicate an idea clearly how can you expect people to understand what you are talking about. If you dont want them to, why are you posting your nonsense all over the web?

Or... is it a case of you not wanting people to understand so that they cannot contradict you but you can keep posting stuff endlessly?
The neutron is the combined product of an electron and a proton. The atom is the neutron.   The neutron can be a cation or an anion.

ok?
No. That is absolute crap. A neutron forms part of the nucleus.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2018 19:14:46
The atom is the neutron.
No.
The neutron has a half life of 881.5 seconds.
The hydrogen atom does not.

It would help if you studied some science, rather than posting stuff that's just not right.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/03/2018 19:16:04
(-e) + (+1e) = n

OK, that's clear- but it's wrong.
In the real world
(-e) + (+1e) = a pair of gamma rays

(q1)+(q2)=q0
































That's a mighty long post to say nothing much.
Were you planning on adding an explanation- it could certainly do with one.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 19/03/2018 19:16:53
No.
The neutron has a half life of 881.5 seconds.
The hydrogen atom does not.

It would help if you studied some science, rather than posting stuff that's just not right.

The neutron also weighs more than the hydrogen atom.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 20/03/2018 14:32:40
No.
The neutron has a half life of 881.5 seconds.
The hydrogen atom does not.

It would help if you studied some science, rather than posting stuff that's just not right.

The neutron also weighs more than the hydrogen atom.
The Hydrogen atom has less force acting on it than a Neutron.   However I will have to re-think ,  I am about 99.9% sure that gravity is polarity related.   
I, we , just need to work it.

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 20/03/2018 14:36:55
Added-


Is it possible that gaseous atoms are different to solid state atoms?

Gaseous atoms quite clearly are invisible where solid state atoms are visible. There must be a difference.


p.s Why do gaseous atoms not form a dense mass by gravity?

Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Kryptid on 20/03/2018 20:36:33
The Hydrogen atom has less force acting on it than a Neutron.

That statement doesn't make sense given that the amount of force acting on a hydrogen atom or a neutron is going to vary enormously depending on the environment they are in. Besides, mass is constant regardless of the force acting on it. I may weigh less on Mars than on Earth, but the amount of mass I have does not change between the two planets (I would resist being accelerated just as much on Earth as I would on Mars). So a hydrogen atom and neutron would have invariant rest masses even if their weights change.

Quote
Is it possible that gaseous atoms are different to solid state atoms?

No, the difference is that there are far fewer atoms per unit volume in a gas than in a liquid or solid.

Quote
Gaseous atoms quite clearly are invisible where solid state atoms are visible. There must be a difference.

Not always. Nitrogen dioxide is red-brown, chlorine is yellow-green, ozone is pale blue, bromine vapor is bright red and iodine vapor is bright purple.

Quote
p.s Why do gaseous atoms not form a dense mass by gravity?

They do. That's what stars are.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2018 20:44:18
I am about 99.9% sure that gravity is polarity related.   
On what basis?
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/03/2018 14:30:59
I am about 99.9% sure that gravity is polarity related.   
On what basis?


On the basis that opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.  On the basis that opposite polarities works for gravity except for a few small glitches that need ironing out. Polarity is the closest candidate in being the possible.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2018 19:47:50
On the basis that opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
OK, so your basis is false.
We know that uncharged things attract one another - Cavendish did the first "laboratory" experiment on this ages ago.
You seem to be claiming it's true because you think it's true.
That's not science.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 21/03/2018 21:54:02
On the basis that opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists.
OK, so your basis is false.
We know that uncharged things attract one another - Cavendish did the first "laboratory" experiment on this ages ago.
You seem to be claiming it's true because you think it's true.
That's not science.

I don't think anything, I am looking at what the physics does.  The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/03/2018 20:33:49
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/03/2018 22:01:24
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/03/2018 22:15:52
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Nonsense.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 22/03/2018 22:32:39
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Nonsense.

Really ? You are saying atoms do not have two opposite polarities as properties? 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: The Spoon on 22/03/2018 22:53:08
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 23/03/2018 18:59:06
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....
Every atom is composed of a nucleus and one or more electrons bound to the nucleus. The nucleus is made of one or more protons and typically a similar number of neutrons. Protons and neutrons are called nucleons. More than 99.94% of an atom's mass is in the nucleus. The protons have a positive electric charge, the electrons have a negative electric charge, and the neutrons have no electric charge. If the number of protons and electrons are equal, that atom is electrically neutral. If an atom has more or fewer electrons than protons, then it has an overall negative or positive charge, respectively, and it is called an ion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/03/2018 19:02:47
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....
Simple- never learn when you get told that you are wrong.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2018 18:04:35
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....
Simple- never learn when you get told that you are wrong.
Told they are wrong does not equate to proven wrong.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2018 18:10:16
Thank you , you helped me with my question and answer. 


I have to explain why some sub atomic particles with no net charge are still attracted, the answer is simple, they are attracted to the atomic particles charge the same as charge is attracted to none charged things but in reverse,


In simple terms, every sub atomic particle you can think up is attracted to the atoms properties of two opposite polarities.

 
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2018 18:20:55

* abn.jpg (29.64 kB . 740x464 - viewed 1960 times)

0 net Q ≠  0 net F
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/03/2018 18:44:18
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....
Simple- never learn when you get told that you are wrong.
Told they are wrong does not equate to proven wrong.
Thanks for the correction
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....
Simple- never learn when you get told it is proven that you are wrong.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2018 18:48:01
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....
Simple- never learn when you get told that you are wrong.
Told they are wrong does not equate to proven wrong.
Thanks for the correction
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....
Simple- never learn when you get told it is proven that you are wrong.
Apart from you saying nonsense or it is wrong, you have not proved me wrong about time and you have not proved me wrong about my gravity idea.  They are two objectively  strong ideas.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/03/2018 19:01:25
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....
Every atom is composed of a nucleus and one or more electrons bound to the nucleus. The nucleus is made of one or more protons and typically a similar number of neutrons. Protons and neutrons are called nucleons. More than 99.94% of an atom's mass is in the nucleus. The protons have a positive electric charge, the electrons have a negative electric charge, and the neutrons have no electric charge. If the number of protons and electrons are equal, that atom is electrically neutral. If an atom has more or fewer electrons than protons, then it has an overall negative or positive charge, respectively, and it is called an ion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

Careful ... you are in danger of making sense. That will never prolong the argument and I know you love a good argument.
Title: Re: The N-field
Post by: guest39538 on 24/03/2018 19:16:46
opposite polarities are seemingly the only attractive force of the Universe that exists. 
I don't think anything,
The physics suggests neutral things are attracted to neutral things.

Because  opposite polarities are properties of Neutral things.
Wow. How can one person be wrong about so many things....