[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

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.

Q.F.S does not try to explain the force between two magnets.  Q.F.S explains Newtons 3 rd law and the relative solidity between to likewise Quantum fields.
I understand my own notion .

[Bored chemist]

I understand my own notion .

Nobody else does.
Whose fault is that?

[guest39538]

I understand my own notion .

Nobody else does.
Whose fault is that?

. A child could understand this so I think you understand.

[Kryptid]

I understand my own notion .

Nobody else does.
Whose fault is that?

I'll throw in a second vote of this stuff not making sense (especially in light of known science).

[guest39538]

I understand my own notion .

Nobody else does.
Whose fault is that?

I'll throw in a second vote of this stuff not making sense (especially in light of known science).

PFFF your a tough ''crowd''.

Ok in your terms.    The electromagnetic field of the earth imposes a force on the Suns electromagnetic field and vice versus because of the likewise polarities of the individual fields and in accordance  with Newton's third law, an equal and opposing force, giving both fields relative Physicality.

ok?

Both electromagnetic fields also are attracted to each other by their individual opposite polarities.

[Bored chemist]

ok?

No, even with proper punctuation etc, it's cargo cult science at best.
In particular this "giving both fields relative Physicality.
"  is a total non sequitur.
It does not follow from what you have said.
You just stuffed it in and hoped that people would accept it.

Would you like to try again with more stuff of the form " because a, therefore b".

BTW, we are not  a tough crowd.
Reality is much tougher.

[guest39538]

ok?

No, even with proper punctuation etc, it's cargo cult science at best.
In particular this "giving both fields relative Physicality.
"  is a total non sequitur.
It does not follow from what you have said.
You just stuffed it in and hoped that people would accept it.

Would you like to try again with more stuff of the form " because a, therefore b".

BTW, we are not  a tough crowd.
Reality is much tougher.

My sentence is not stuffed , it is easy to understand.  I am not writing a paper here or facing an audience, I present it in basics for discussion . 
It is hardly as if I am took serious is it now?

[guest39538]

ok?

No, even with proper punctuation etc, it's cargo cult science at best.
In particular this "giving both fields relative Physicality.
"  is a total non sequitur.
It does not follow from what you have said.
You just stuffed it in and hoped that people would accept it.

Would you like to try again with more stuff of the form " because a, therefore b".

BTW, we are not  a tough crowd.
Reality is much tougher.

I can't believe I keep biting.

The N-field has mass.

In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions. The electromagnetic field opposes other electromagnetic fields applying an opposing and attractive force at the same time.
In magnetic suspension it is not the object that is being suspended , it is the invisible quantum field that surrounds the objects.

added - Essentially my N-field is Einsteins fabric of the spacial continuum.

added- And there is a maybe  in my mind that there is an underlying quantum field that has dielectric properties that allows the N-field to permeate through. i.e an ''ether''

added- or rather than an ''ether'' the dielectric properties of space itself.

added- The more I think about it, there has to be dielectric properties of space itself having μ=0

[Bored chemist]

In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions.

Not really.

And there is ... an ''ether''

No there isn't.
We checked.

[guest39538]

In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions.

Not really.

And there is ... an ''ether''

No there isn't.
We checked.

Well like normal MR Chemist your ability to not be able to think certainly shows in most of your replies.  You can't find or detect an ''ether'' that is dielectric and has μ0.  I know you can't understand that the dielectric properties of space are of space and not of a spacial field such as the Higg's field.
The properties of nothing being dielectric is a rather confusing thought I must agree.   But to suggest a dielectric field occupying space would suppose intelligent design.
Are you really suggesting that two likewise fields do not oppose force on each other?  The fields have mass like it or not because I didn't write these rules of forces etc.

In physics, a state of matter is one of the distinct forms in which matter can exist. Four states of matter are observable in everyday life: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. ..

Quantum fields are a state of matter , they are relatively solids to each other.

qfm.jpg (34.48 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 6094 times)

added- When I turn on the light switch I am emitting an electromagnetic field that permeates isotropic at c through the Box's dielectric field (a property of space).  Now any object that is within radius (r) of a certain magnitude has cause and affect on each others fields.

.....cause that's what the mechanics say

added- cause if the space had any polarity , fields would not be able to permeate.

[The Spoon]

In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions.

Not really.

And there is ... an ''ether''

No there isn't.
We checked.

Well like normal MR Chemist your ability to not be able to think certainly shows in most of your replies.  You can't find or detect an ''ether'' that is dielectric and has μ0.  I know you can't understand that the dielectric properties of space are of space and not of a spacial field such as the Higg's field.
The properties of nothing being dielectric is a rather confusing thought I must agree.   But to suggest a dielectric field occupying space would suppose intelligent design.
Are you really suggesting that two likewise fields do not oppose force on each other?  The fields have mass like it or not because I didn't write these rules of forces etc.

In physics, a state of matter is one of the distinct forms in which matter can exist. Four states of matter are observable in everyday life: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. ..

Quantum fields are a state of matter , they are relatively solids to each other.

qfm.jpg (34.48 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 6094 times)

added- When I turn on the light switch I am emitting an electromagnetic field that permeates isotropic at c through the Box's dielectric field (a property of space).  Now any object that is within radius (r) of a certain magnitude has cause and affect on each others fields.

.....cause that's what the mechanics say

added- cause if the space had any polarity , fields would not be able to permeate.

So you are proposing the existence of something that cant find or detect? That defines something that does not exist. I dont thin kyou understand what dielectric means. 'μ0' is meaningless it has no units and appears to be two characters you have picked randomly to represent something and expect us to guess what it means.
The rest of your post is gibberish.

[guest39538]

In your terms the electromagnetic field has mass and is a geometrical figure having 3 dimensions.

Not really.

And there is ... an ''ether''

No there isn't.
We checked.

Well like normal MR Chemist your ability to not be able to think certainly shows in most of your replies.  You can't find or detect an ''ether'' that is dielectric and has μ0.  I know you can't understand that the dielectric properties of space are of space and not of a spacial field such as the Higg's field.
The properties of nothing being dielectric is a rather confusing thought I must agree.   But to suggest a dielectric field occupying space would suppose intelligent design.
Are you really suggesting that two likewise fields do not oppose force on each other?  The fields have mass like it or not because I didn't write these rules of forces etc.

In physics, a state of matter is one of the distinct forms in which matter can exist. Four states of matter are observable in everyday life: solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. ..

Quantum fields are a state of matter , they are relatively solids to each other.

qfm.jpg (34.48 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 6094 times)

added- When I turn on the light switch I am emitting an electromagnetic field that permeates isotropic at c through the Box's dielectric field (a property of space).  Now any object that is within radius (r) of a certain magnitude has cause and affect on each others fields.

.....cause that's what the mechanics say

added- cause if the space had any polarity , fields would not be able to permeate.

So you are proposing the existence of something that cant find or detect? That defines something that does not exist. I dont thin kyou understand what dielectric means. 'μ0' is meaningless it has no units and appears to be two characters you have picked randomly to represent something and expect us to guess what it means.
The rest of your post is gibberish.

First of all μ0 means zero permeability.  Secondly I know what dielectric means, well I thought I did until I just checked  up on it.  I swear wiki keeps changing, never mind. 
I want to explain a ''field'' that allows a negative and positive polarity to permeate through, could I say a conductive field?
This ''field'' being the ''ether'' that allows the electromagnetic fields to permeate through it isotropic.   Electromagnetic fields having the duality of being repulsive and attractive at the same time.

[guest39538]

The cube will weigh less on the Moon than on Earth, but it will not have less mass.

It weighs less because there is less magnitude of G than on Earth? i.e less applied force

[guest39538]

merge2.jpg (65.48 kB . 898x572 - viewed 4680 times)

[guest39538]

merge3.jpg (66.67 kB . 898x572 - viewed 8573 times)

Quantum field solidity and Quantum field merge.

[Bored chemist]

First of all μ0 means zero permeability.

Not in the real world.
it's not zero, its (still) about 1.6 µH/m just as I told you before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability

Please make up another term for your made up idea.

[The Spoon]

First of all μ0 means zero permeability.

Not in the real world.
it's not zero, its (still) about 1.6 µH/m just as I told you before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability

Please make up another term for your made up idea.

Maybe call it The Reflex who according to the lyrics of the hit by Duran Duran, is a lonely child waiting by the park.

[guest39538]

First of all μ0 means zero permeability.

Not in the real world.
it's not zero, its (still) about 1.6 µH/m just as I told you before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability

Please make up another term for your made up idea.

A vacuum on Earth in experiment or the almost vacuum of space?

[The Spoon]

First of all μ0 means zero permeability.

Not in the real world.
it's not zero, its (still) about 1.6 µH/m just as I told you before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability

Please make up another term for your made up idea.

A vacuum on Earth in experiment or the almost vacuum of space?

If you had read the linked article you wouldn't be asking this question.

[guest39538]

First of all μ0 means zero permeability.

Not in the real world.
it's not zero, its (still) about 1.6 µH/m just as I told you before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_permeability

Please make up another term for your made up idea.

A vacuum on Earth in experiment or the almost vacuum of space?

If you had read the linked article you wouldn't be asking this question.

Yes I would because the link does not really answer my question.   (Not what I can 'see'').