[Bored chemist]

My theory is somewhat different to that though because my theory explains gravity.

No it isn't.

An electron is not attracted to a proton...

Yes it is.

the electron field is attracted to and merges with the proton field to create the N-field ,

No, it doesn't

a unified field that is a good contender for  the mechanism of gravity.

No, it isn't.

It is not my fault that you cram 3 errors into one sentence  so I have to chop it up to point out the errors.

I would rather talk to nobody than talk to people who's only intent is to be disruptive.

Posting drivel on a science website is disruptive, so you ruled out talking to yourself there.

Not many other people will read through this thread.
So, with luck, it will now die out.

[guest39538]

An electron is not attracted to a proton...

Yes it is.

I really suggest you go learn some Physics before you say things aren't making yourself look stupid. Mass is attracted to the C.O.M
At C.O.M the N-field is at its most dense in accordance to the transverse square law.
The N-field expands outwards , the N-field is an isolated system field.   This field has attractive and repulsive properties.
Basic physics my friend.

[guest39538]

This is the bit you are missing to complete quantum mechanics.. This is my last effort to explain gravity, my last science forum and quite simply I have had enough.


f2.jpg (35.74 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 6066 times)

[The Spoon]

This is the bit you are missing to complete quantum mechanics.. This is my last effort to explain gravity, my last science forum and quite simply I have had enough.


f2.jpg (35.74 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 6066 times)

Of course it is, until your craving for attention gets too much and you post some more mumblings.

[guest39538]

This is the bit you are missing to complete quantum mechanics.. This is my last effort to explain gravity, my last science forum and quite simply I have had enough.


f2.jpg (35.74 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 6066 times)

Of course it is, until your craving for attention gets too much and you post some more mumblings.

Your answer is doing any sort of science is it? 

No answer is often the validation of the truth.

Are you trying to say that my logic and use of simple physics is in some way flawed?

Then please show my error I am all ear's.

added- The above applies to anybody in the world or Universe, show my logic and simple physics to be flawed if you can.


Added- You can call it space-time curvature if you like, I am just giving you what you can not see.

→F
.....=N-field
←F

[The Spoon]

This is the bit you are missing to complete quantum mechanics.. This is my last effort to explain gravity, my last science forum and quite simply I have had enough.


f2.jpg (35.74 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 6066 times)

Of course it is, until your craving for attention gets too much and you post some more mumblings.

Your answer is doing any sort of science is it? 

No answer is often the validation of the truth.

Are you trying to say that my logic and use of simple physics is in some way flawed?

Then please show my error I am all ear's.

Your error is making assertions without any kind of evidence other than 'this is the case because it is what I think'. If people point out you are wrong you claim that they are trolls or claim that your made up ideas are an 'axiom'. I do science all day as my job. What do you do? make videos about carp fishing with a synthesised voice?

[guest39538]

This is the bit you are missing to complete quantum mechanics.. This is my last effort to explain gravity, my last science forum and quite simply I have had enough.


f2.jpg (35.74 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 6066 times)

Of course it is, until your craving for attention gets too much and you post some more mumblings.

Your answer is doing any sort of science is it? 

No answer is often the validation of the truth.

Are you trying to say that my logic and use of simple physics is in some way flawed?

Then please show my error I am all ear's.

Your error is making assertions without any kind of evidence other than 'this is the case because it is what I think'. If people point out you are wrong you claim that they are trolls or claim that your made up ideas are an 'axiom'. I do science all day as my job. What do you do? make videos about carp fishing with a synthesised voice?

But saying I am wrong does not explain why I am wrong. You can go on all day long saying it is wrong but not actually explaining why it is wrong.  Like I said I am all ears.

You say I am using no evidence when I am using evidence of the simple physics involved that we already know.  To deny Q.F.S is like saying that opposites do not attract and likewise repulses.

[Colin2B]

No answer is often the validation of the truth.

But most often it is folks not being bothered to challenge something which is obviously flawed.

I haven't been following this thread so the comment is not about it in particular.

[guest39538]

No answer is often the validation of the truth.

But most often it is folks not being bothered to challenge something which is obviously flawed.

I haven't been following this thread so the comment is not about it in particular.

Then may I suggest you read the thread Colin and please correct me in my logic if in some way it is flawed.  I am using specifically basic science here with no gimmicks.

I can't personally ''see'' where my logic is flawed when using conventional science for the very notion. If it was so obvious then why is it so difficult to show the error?

I am also trying to think of errors there could be but I certainly can't ''see'' any.  It is seemingly the end point of answers that explains gravity also.

[Bored chemist]

An electron is not attracted to a proton...

Yes it is.

I really suggest you go learn some Physics before you say things aren't making yourself look stupid. Mass is attracted to the C.O.M
At C.O.M the N-field is at its most dense in accordance to the transverse square law.
The N-field expands outwards , the N-field is an isolated system field.   This field has attractive and repulsive properties.
Basic physics my friend.

Slightly more advanced physics.
The electromagnetic force is about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times bigger than the gravitational force and, in both cases they are attractive forces between the proton and electron.
So, yes they are attracted to one another.

The rest of what you posted is gibberish.

[guest39538]

An electron is not attracted to a proton...

Yes it is.

I really suggest you go learn some Physics before you say things aren't making yourself look stupid. Mass is attracted to the C.O.M
At C.O.M the N-field is at its most dense in accordance to the transverse square law.
The N-field expands outwards , the N-field is an isolated system field.   This field has attractive and repulsive properties.
Basic physics my friend.

Slightly more advanced physics.
The electromagnetic force is about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times bigger than the gravitational force and, in both cases they are attractive forces between the proton and electron.
So, yes they are attracted to one another.

The rest of what you posted is gibberish.

I should hope so or my N-field would not work.  You are not accounting that the N-field is a weaker force than the electromagnetic/electrostatic force between electrons and protons.  You are forgetting that the N-field is a neutralised field with a weak force interaction. i.e gravity.

added- However although it has a weak force , relative to other N-fields it has 100% solidity.

[Bored chemist]

The rest of what you posted is gibberish.

I should hope so

You are just making stuff up.It's not science, it's not helpful; it's not even very creative.
Why do you do it?

[guest39538]

The rest of what you posted is gibberish.

I should hope so

You are just making stuff up.It's not science, it's not helpful; it's not even very creative.
Why do you do it?

Stop trying to troll me you are not  stupid and can understand the very simple explanations and simple physics involved.

Let us try a new approach although I think you are intentionally being obtuse.

Do you agree that if we have two likewise polarities they will exert a repulsive force on each other?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law

It says it does, are you in disagreement ?

added- Because in Q.F.S a variation of Newtons 3rd law.    When one N-field exerts a force on a second N-field, the second N-field simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first N-field.

[Bored chemist]

When one N-field exerts a force on a second N-field, the second N-field simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first N-field.

You made that bit up, and it's gibberish.
Show me any published work that supports the existence of these "N fields".
Or show me that they somehow explain the world as well as the conventional  view.
Please note that, to do that  you will have to start by showing that the normal view is actually wrong, then show how your way is better.

[guest39538]

When one N-field exerts a force on a second N-field, the second N-field simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first N-field.

You made that bit up, and it's gibberish.
Show me any published work that supports the existence of these "N fields".

I made that bit up? It is almost word for word from Wiki apart from my edit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

How can I show you the future? Meaning published works I have not done yet.

The notion adds to the conventional view .   M1 is the C.O.M of the N-field.

Treat the Earths magnetic field as being a body, so the earth being a body within a body ok? 

Easy as that...

p.s Push two of the same polarities together with magnets, feel the force of the body between the magnets.

[guest39538]

qfs1.jpg (22.84 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 5747 times)

Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.

[Bored chemist]

I made that bit up? It is almost word for word from Wiki apart from my edit.

The edit was the gibberish bit.

[Bored chemist]

Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.

Everybody else thinks it proves Maxwell's equations.

[guest39538]

Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.

Everybody else thinks it proves Maxwell's equations.

You think an equation can have purpose on its own?  No the process is first , the maths explains the process , the maths does not explain Q.F.S

[Bored chemist]

Added - I think the magnet experiment proves the existence of Q.F.S Quantum field solidity.

Everybody else thinks it proves Maxwell's equations.

You think an equation can have purpose on its own?  No the process is first , the maths explains the process , the maths does not explain Q.F.S

QFS is something you made up. You are the one who needs to explain it. So far you don't even seem to understand what  that means.
In the meantime, Maxwell's equations  (and the physics that goes with them) explain the force between two magnets.