[guest39538]

Surely I deserve some credit for this one?

[Bored chemist]

Surely I deserve some credit for this one?

This forum doesn't have a "performance art" section.

[guest39538]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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?

[Bored chemist]

I don't care about predictions

Then you are not interested in science.

[Kryptid]

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.

[guest39538]

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 .

[Kryptid]

I think you are missing the bigger picture and a united field theory.

The "bigger picture" being what?

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.

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.

[guest39538]

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. 

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.

[Kryptid]

LOOK what I say in the video.

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

I beg to differ, I explain it better

According to what evidence?

[guest39538]

LOOK what I say in the video.

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

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.   

[Kryptid]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

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.

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.

[guest39538]

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.

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.

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

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?

[Bored chemist]

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

[guest39538]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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.