[guest39538]

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?

[The Spoon]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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? Harrod’s was destroyed by the Vogons.

FORD:
Well it doesn’t matter -

ARTHUR:
So you keep saying!

FORD:
No, No listen. Just imagine that you’ve got this ebony bath, right? And it’s conical.

ARTHUR:
Conical? What kind of bath is -

FORD:
No, no, shh, shhh, it’s, it’s, it’s conical okay? So what you do, you fill it with fine white sand right? Or sugar, or anything like that. And when it’s 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 that’s how the universe began?

FORD:
No. But it’s a marvellous way to relax. "

[Kryptid]

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.

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"?

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.

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.

Before the BB there was nothing

How do you know?

so a point particle can not be 0 dimensions because that would be a prequel to the big bang.

Major non-sequitur.

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).

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.

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.

[guest39538]

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

Before the BB there was nothing

How do you know?

I define nothing as space. So before the big bang there was space.

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

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Bored chemist]

Spacial fields have special mass.

Yes and this is a special thread.

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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).

[Kryptid]

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).

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.

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.

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?

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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).

[Kryptid]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

neut.jpg (21.19 kB . 740x464 - viewed 2800 times)

[guest39538]

The applications of this very thought.


spidey.jpg (22.68 kB . 740x464 - viewed 2826 times)