[guest39538]

Are you saying that  μ0 is not 0?   

[guest39538]

Two opposite fields merging into a N-field would have the simulating effect of physical attributes such as weight and solidity,  allowing other N-fields to interact directly with as if virtual objects of solidity.  i.e force feedback

[guest39538]

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

Quantum field solidity and Quantum field merge.

I think I have just worked out my own answer. 

r=(F1+F2)+(F1+F2)=r₀

[guest39538]

So you were taking the mick after all.  I just came across this video.  You could of told me my notions you already know.

I can explain it far better and far more accurate though if I really wanted too.  Back to the drawing board for me, I bet you didn't consider Q.F.S , that is new to you I am sure.

P.s all these forums that say I am full of chit for years then a video of the same chit . pfffff

[Bored chemist]

Are you saying that  μ0 is not 0?   

It's not that I am saying it.
It's just that μ0 is, in fact, about 1.6 µH/m
Nothing you can type here will stop that being true.

I realise you have't the understanding to recognise this fact but if it was zero, the speed of light would be infinite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
You are plainly wrong.
Why do you keep banging on about it?

[Bored chemist]

So you were taking the mick after all.  I just came across this video.  You could of told me my notions you already know.

I can explain it far better and far more accurate though if I really wanted too.  Back to the drawing board for me, I bet you didn't consider Q.F.S , that is new to you I am sure.

P.s all these forums that say I am full of chit for years then a video of the same chit . pfffff

Imagine I said
" The universe is made of pancakes"
And various people pointed out that it was a silly idea.

Then I posted a video about pancake making.
Would it show that I was right?

OK, swap pancakes for QFT, and that's pretty much what you did.

Why not stop?

[guest39538]

Why not stop?

Because I provide the ingredients of the pancake.  If we do not know the ingredients of a pancake , then we have no information about how a pancake is made.   

[guest39538]

Are you saying that  μ0 is not 0?   

It's not that I am saying it.
It's just that μ0 is, in fact, about 1.6 µH/m
Nothing you can type here will stop that being true.

I realise you have't the understanding to recognise this fact but if it was zero, the speed of light would be infinite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation
You are plainly wrong.
Why do you keep banging on about it?

By that you are saying there is an ether. What is the permeability of an electromagnetic field?

[Bored chemist]

By that you are saying there is an ether.

No I am not.
It's easier if you don't make up stuff that other people "said"  but actually read what they did say.

Because I provide the ingredients of the pancake.  If we do not know the ingredients of a pancake , then we have no information about how a pancake is made. 

And when you do so, you still don't move us to a better understanding of physics.

[guest39538]

And when you do so, you still don't move us to a better understanding of physics.

But every time I post some physics, I learn more and have a better understanding of ''your'' physics.  The replies are often my teachers.

[Bored chemist]

And when you do so, you still don't move us to a better understanding of physics.

But every time I post some physics, I learn more and have a better understanding of ''your'' physics.  The replies are often my teachers.

For a start, what you are posting isn't physics; at best it seems to be bad postmodern poetry

You will learn faster if you ask questions than if you post balderdash- so why do you insist on the slow route?

[guest39538]

And when you do so, you still don't move us to a better understanding of physics.

But every time I post some physics, I learn more and have a better understanding of ''your'' physics.  The replies are often my teachers.

For a start, what you are posting isn't physics; at best it seems to be bad postmodern poetry

You will learn faster if you ask questions than if you post balderdash- so why do you insist on the slow route?

What you really mean to say is what I post is not the Physics you were taught by education that is mainstream .  So why don't you try to understand and learn some new Physics that you have not learnt yet?

I am the teacher in my own new theory threads but I am also still learning because there is to much to know.

[guest39538]

Explaining.

I was going to save this for the continuation of my paper but now is the time I feel the need for explanation.

All in the universe is a complex system that exists by random chance and the coincidence of two individual opposite energies manifesting at the exact 0 point geometrical position simultaneously.

The unified polarities of fields having the ability to contract and expand  the fields that are interwoven by the very fact that all points of one field is equally attracted to all points of an opposite field to create the quantum solidity of fields.
If one field is stretched then the opposite field also stretches and if one field field contracts the opposite field contracts as they are ''glue'' like together,
The very fabric of the space being the extended infinite n-fields of the N-fields.   

[atbsphotography]

Explaining.

I was going to save this for the continuation of my paper but now is the time I feel the need for explanation.

All in the universe is a complex system that exists by random chance and the coincidence of two individual opposite energies manifesting at the exact 0 point geometrical position simultaneously.

The unified polarities of fields having the ability to contract and expand  the fields that are interwoven by the very fact that all points of one field is equally attracted to all points of an opposite field to create the quantum solidity of fields.
If one field is stretched then the opposite field also stretches and if one field field contracts the opposite field contracts as they are ''glue'' like together,
The very fabric of the space being the extended infinite n-fields of the N-fields.

If it was infinite then why would there be a need to extend it?
For example, if you had a contract to do something for an infinite amount of time, you wouldn't extend that contract to keep it for longer would you? Infinite literally means there is no end, to extend it you would have to find the end but without there being an end it is quintessentially impossible.

[guest39538]

If it was infinite then why would there be a need to extend it?

That is where my Eviscosity plays a part and Q.F.D  quantum field density.   Imagine a boat at rest at a dock.  The tide comes in the boat expands from the ocean floor.
In this instant the density of the water remains constant.   But when we talk about fields, they have dynamic density.

I am considering explaining this as Q.F.B  (quantum field buoyancy).   For example the earth is less buoyant than mars.

[atbsphotography]

If it was infinite then why would there be a need to extend it?

That is where my Eviscosity plays a part and Q.F.D  quantum field density.   Imagine a boat at rest at a dock.  The tide comes in the boat expands from the ocean floor.
In this instant the density of the water remains constant.   But when we talk about fields, they have dynamic density.

I am considering explaining this as Q.F.B  (quantum field buoyancy).   For example the earth is less buoyant than mars.

Not really, QFB would be wrong, objects are not buoyant on a quantum level,

[guest39538]

If it was infinite then why would there be a need to extend it?

That is where my Eviscosity plays a part and Q.F.D  quantum field density.   Imagine a boat at rest at a dock.  The tide comes in the boat expands from the ocean floor.
In this instant the density of the water remains constant.   But when we talk about fields, they have dynamic density.

I am considering explaining this as Q.F.B  (quantum field buoyancy).   For example the earth is less buoyant than mars.

Not really, QFB would be wrong, objects are not buoyant on a quantum level,

You would be wrong on that assumption.  Likewise polarities give quantum buoyancy.   Have you never seen magnetic suspension?    The object in suspension is floating on the quantum solidity of the field affects.

The ''free'' space between the suspended object and field source having Q.F.S.   If we were to increase the magnitude of the source force , the object will expand away from the source. Density of the field increasing giving a further radius where the object is at equilibrium buoyancy rest.

[Bored chemist]

What you really mean to say is what I post is not the Physics you were taught by education that is mainstream

No
What I mean is that what you post is not the physics that works.
So, what you post doesn't work.

Re. "why don't you try to understand and learn some new Physics that you have not learnt yet? "
I would, and from time to time, I do.
But what you post is not " some new Physics that you have not learnt yet? "
What you post is useless dross that makes no sense.

[guest39538]

What you really mean to say is what I post is not the Physics you were taught by education that is mainstream

No
What I mean is that what you post is not the physics that works.
So, what you post doesn't work.

Re. "why don't you try to understand and learn some new Physics that you have not learnt yet? "
I would, and from time to time, I do.
But what you post is not " some new Physics that you have not learnt yet? "
What you post is useless dross that makes no sense.

That is strange because the physics i have posted on the N-field and n-field does work. It is ''your'' physics.

Ok Mr Chemist I am going to pretend you are not a bored troll and discuss this with you properly if you are up for the challenge?


Firstly in anticipation of your reply I would like to discuss Coulombs laws.

Coulomb's law states that: The magnitude of the electrostatic force of attraction between two point charges is directly proportional to the product of the magnitudes of charges and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The force is along the straight line joining them.

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

Do you accept this to be factual science and true?

[Bored chemist]

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

Do you accept this to be factual science and true?

Yes.