[guest39538]

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)

[guest39538]

x_-1+x₊₁=0

x₊₁+x_-1=0

[Bored chemist]

(-e) + (+1e) = n

OK, that's clear- but it's wrong.
In the real world
(-e) + (+1e) = a pair of gamma rays

[The Spoon]

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 = F²=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 = F²=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?

[guest39538]

(-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

[guest39538]

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 = F²=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 = F²=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?

[The Spoon]

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 = F²=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 = F²=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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

(-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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

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.

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.

p.s Why do gaseous atoms not form a dense mass by gravity?

They do. That's what stars are.

[Bored chemist]

I am about 99.9% sure that gravity is polarity related.   

On what basis?

[guest39538]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.