0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Surely I deserve some credit for this one?
Quote from: Thebox on 25/09/2017 17:04:19Surely I deserve some credit for this one?This forum doesn't have a "performance art" section.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 17:49:54Quote from: Thebox on 25/09/2017 17:04:19Surely 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/09/2017 18:04:39Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 17:49:54Quote from: Thebox on 25/09/2017 17:04:19Surely 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.
I don't care about predictions
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
Which is completely unnecessary. A well-explained phenomenon does not need any new explanation.
LOOK what I say in the video.
I beg to differ, I explain it better
Quote from: Thebox on 25/09/2017 21:07:18LOOK what I say in the video.I watched your video. You only gave assertions, not evidence.QuoteI beg to differ, I explain it betterAccording to what evidence?
The present evidence for one. Opposite fields attractLikewise fields repulseBasic physics.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/09/2017 21:14:58The present evidence for one. Opposite fields attractLikewise fields repulseBasic 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 25/09/2017 21:25:39You would be missing something there, like protons repulse protonsYes, 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.
Merge? Protons and electrons retain their separate identities when they are in atoms.
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.
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 from: Thebox on 25/09/2017 20:58:35It'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
My theory is somewhat different to that though because my theory explains gravity. An electron is not attracted to a proton
Quote from: Thebox on 25/09/2017 22:56:08My theory is somewhat different to that though because my theory explains gravity. An electron is not attracted to a protonNo it isn't and yes it is.