0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
OK.. in your defense, I have heard once, that there was a theory, that there was a negative gravitational force..
I am impressed Pete really, how you assert all the time about people , and not just on this forum. You presume a lot, tell people they are practically stupid and insist they have not learnt , do you think you can see people beyond the internet Pete, some sort of physic power that allows you to assume all these things about a person?
I honestly bang my head against a wall, you are in a new theories section preaching old theories back to me that everyone knows because it is on wiki.
In a new theory section you should not be trying to teach anyone anything, it is their theory not yours, so why do you do it?
You have a very twisted view of science.
atoms have a positive and a negative aurora
Mr BoxIf you want to communicate with the natives, it's a good idea to learn their language. This is particularly the case in science where every word has a precise meaning, and every statement can be challenged by experiment. Mass is not charge. Charge is not mass. Mass has no polarity. Quoteatoms have a positive and a negative aurora Think what you like. Some people believe in all sorts of nonsense - churches of all denominations are full of them. But don't kid yourself it has anything to do with science.
Photons?Calling someone wrong would suggest one knows what is correct. If you have an interpretation of gluons different from aether of thebox it just becomes a wizzing contest. While the relationship to mass might be a different perspective neither can physically describe the gluon. So can we dispense with the "wrong " when we do not really know the right?Lets physically describe the gluon. Any takers?No longer a proton? Leaves allot of room for the imagination.Not a proton. Any takers? The claim that one is wrong suggests they know the physical makeup mechanically of the photon and the not a photon. Please temper your use of wrong or describe the gluon physical cause of transfer mechanism.What is different from a gluon that an aether, dark mass, dark energy or spacetime as a different word can not attribute unknown forces?I do not totally agree with him either but when does having a different perspective cause arrogance? Jealous protection of your understanding might be considered arrogance. This is new theories and ideas create new theories. Correct or incorrect ideas make us think and there is no better job for science than to make one think. Main stream echo?
It was a name waiting to be observed for holding mass together by some process. While collision energies have increased to a point where one of the products of a collision claims the gluon particle found at that energy. like blowing a car up and saying there goes the ignition key. And the crowd repeats the ignition key.
So a Gluon is a theoretical ''particle'' that glues all matter together?Why particle and not an energy field?
Describe a virtual particle. Now describe, how it differs from a photon, dark mass dark energy.
Virtual particle is used for photons so the main stream interpretation can stay intact. No particle can go c so it is a virtual particle. I have seen it described as a weasel word. A non particle, particle. A stretching of space to expand faster than c. Any time something does not make sense or only makes sense for your version we need a closer look. When reverse engineering the unknown we do not have a model in mind or we pollute what we are engineering.
You know a lot of things who are you?
A virtual particle, can I name it the Negatron for the purpose of my topic?
The virtual flow of Negatron's from matter is attracted to the Positrons of matter and matter follows the flow always?
The flow of Negatron's , a linearity with no net charge
A combination of Negatrons and Positrons denoting a virtual ''elastic like'' coupling of matter to matter by sending a Negatron virtual carrier signal
through the constant conduit of light
light is plasmorphic when it interacts with matter by temporal shift of the constant.
to far?
You can argue gravity still exists in the dark, but I will argue that the darkness is not without light
Simply consider space is Neutral always, 0 frequency of light, O net charge, O interaction , we send charge as waves through the constant that is why they are detectable.
QuoteThe virtual flow of Negatron's from matter is attracted to the Positrons of matter and matter follows the flow always?Virtual flow is as bad as virtual particle. Describe what flows.spaceQuoteThe flow of Negatron's , a linearity with no net charge What is a linearity with no net charge? What is the flow of negatrons? Describe the negatrons with how and why they flow.space