[Bored chemist]

Charge and mass has no attractive properties,

Demonstrably false.
On the lab scale this was shown by Cavendish.
On a bigger scale it's what keeps the moon in orbit etc.

Polarity is a constant

No it isn't.

more than a coincidence I would say.

Sensible people would't say it

And the rest of the post just isn't worthy of comment.
It's still time you learned some science.

[Bored chemist]

I have not said it is proven to be true however the facts

You didn't cite any facts, just nonsense.

[Bored chemist]

p.s I have proven it true in my own mind because i cant find it to be untrue.

That's because you have no idea what you are on about.

[Kryptid]

Where do I say I have proven it to be true?

I have not said it is proven to be true however the facts make it very possibly true.

Here:

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

This notion of mine is correct

The difference is the n-field is not made up. It is a physical thing that has and is observed every day .
I have not made anything up in my theory I only used hard factual science that exists and is easily provable.

p.s I have proven it true in my own mind because i cant find it to be untrue.

You realize that "true until proven untrue" is the opposite of how rational thinking works, right? Should we assume that fairies, Bigfoot, invisible unicorns and everything we have failed to falsify automatically exist?

[guest39538]

p.s I have proven it true in my own mind because i cant find it to be untrue.

That's because you have no idea what you are on about.

If only that were true, I know what I am on about, not only do I know it , I can ''see'' it and if I can remember how to upscale an object in size  in Blender, I could CGI it using particle mode.

[guest39538]

You realize that "true until proven untrue" is the opposite of how rational thinking works, right? Should we assume that fairies, Bigfoot, invisible unicorns and everything we have failed to falsify automatically exist?

Well to me , the science over the years everyone has learnt me ''speaks'' to me and says it is possible. If something is possible then it is more than just the imagination.  But yes I understand I need to find something testable, maybe Hutchingson would give me a  hand.

[Kryptid]

If something is possible then it is more than just the imagination.

Not necessarily. It is possible that there is a million dollars hidden under my house somewhere. Until I have some evidence that it is really there, then I don't know that it is more than my imagination, now do I?

[guest39538]

If something is possible then it is more than just the imagination.

Not necessarily. It is possible that there is a million dollars hidden under my house somewhere. Until I have some evidence that it is really there, then I don't know that it is more than my imagination, now do I?

True but when the evidence is present information of science, the suggestive becomes more factual. 

No one is denying Coulomb's law in being true , which alone is the hard evidence needed for my theory.   Notice I did not say Hypothesis?

A question for you, if we have a single polarity field, do you agree it is likewise to itself?

[Kryptid]

True but when the evidence is present information of science, the suggestive becomes more factual.

The existing explanation for the solidity of objects uses "present information of science". At the very least, you'd have to perform an experiment that differentiates between the two explanations. Let me know when you've done that.

No one is denying Coulomb's law in being true , which alone is the hard evidence needed for my theory.   Notice I did not say Hypothesis?

I'm the one who said it was a hypothesis because that's what it is. You've done no experiments to even advance it to the point of being a theory.

A question for you, if we had a single polarity field, do you agree it is likewise to itself?

The question makes no sense to me. I don't know what "likewise to itself" is supposed to mean.

[guest39538]

The question makes no sense to me. I don't know what "likewise to itself" is supposed to mean.

Huh? I think you are being a little slow there, 

Let me explain this way ,

We have  a cube of energy 10mile³    that is a single polarity we will use q for polarity and - to represent the sign.


q1=10mile³

Now if you can imagine a matrix of 0 point spaces, i.e volume, all  0 points of the matrix are likewise to each other in polarity ?

[Kryptid]

Huh? I think you are being a little slow there

Where I come from, I've never heard anyone say "likewise to itself". It sounds like bad grammar to me. What are you trying to say with that phrase?

Let me explain this way ,

We have  a cube of energy 10mile³    that is a single polarity we will use q for polarity and - to represent the sign.

There is no such thing as a "cube of energy". Energy is not a physically tangible object, it is a property of objects. You might as well say you have a cube of spin or a cube of speed.

q1=10mile³

Since when is polarity the same as a volume?

Now if you can imagine a matrix of 0 point spaces, i.e volume, all  0 points of the matrix are likewise to each other in polarity ?

There you go again with that "likewise" thing. Are you trying to say that they all have the same charge or what?

[guest39538]

Where I come from, I've never heard anyone say "likewise to itself". It sounds like bad grammar to me. What are you trying to say with that phrase?

That all cm³ of a m³ volume of a single pole field is the same  polarity and likewise.

[guest39538]

Since when is polarity the same as a volume?

Fields

[guest39538]

There is no such thing as a "cube of energy". Energy is not a physically tangible object, it is a property of objects. You might as well say you have a cube of spin or a cube of speed.

imagine fog filling the volume if you like , I was trying to give you something to picture.

[Kryptid]

Alright, if I understand you correctly, you're just talking about a negatively or positively-charged field filling a given volume of space?

[guest39538]

Alright, if I understand you correctly, you're just talking about a negatively or positively-charged field filling a given volume of space?

Yes that's it in basic form, do you agree that any point of the field is the same and likewise to any other point of the field?

i.e likewise to itself

[Kryptid]

Yes that's it in basic form, do you agree that any point of the field is the same and likewise to any other point of the field?

i.e likewise to itself

Depends on what you mean by "the same". The strength of a vector field is certainly going to vary depending on where you are in the field. A gravitational field is stronger closer to a planet than far from it and a magnetic field is stronger closer to its poles than far from them.

[Bored chemist]

Well to me , the science over the years everyone has learnt me ''speaks'' to me and says it is possible

You should ask it to repeat itself; you clearly didn't hear it right.

[guest39538]

Yes that's it in basic form, do you agree that any point of the field is the same and likewise to any other point of the field?

i.e likewise to itself

Depends on what you mean by "the same". The strength of a vector field is certainly going to vary depending on where you are in the field. A gravitational field is stronger closer to a planet than far from it and a magnetic field is stronger closer to its poles than far from them.

It has already been said that polarity has no magnitude, the question is about the polarity not the charge or magnitude of the field. 

The polarity of one point is the same and likewise to all other points of the field yes?

[Bored chemist]

Let me explain this way ,

We have  a cube of energy 10mile³    that is a single polarity we will use q for polarity and - to represent the sign.


q1=10mile³

Now if you can imagine a matrix of 0 point spaces, i.e volume, all  0 points of the matrix are likewise to each other in polarity ?

That's not an explanation. It's word salad.

"The polarity of one point is the same and likewise to all other points of the field yes?"
No.