[Kryptid]

Right ok, I think the penny dropped. You say fields don't work like that, I disagree

Then you're wrong. An electric field itself does not have any electric charge. It is simply the entity which allows electric charges to interact with each other. Electric fields are composed of virtual photons, which have no electric charge and therefore cannot attract or repel one-another.

if you can now take away the visible  image of the gas cloud and replace it with the image of a field, there is no difference in the physics involved, the polarised field will expand in accordance with the physics involved.

Electric fields themselves are not charged, so no such thing will happen.

[guest39538]

Right ok, I think the penny dropped. You say fields don't work like that, I disagree

Then you're wrong. An electric field itself does not have any electric charge. It is simply the entity which allows electric charges to interact with each other. Electric fields are composed of virtual photons, which have no electric charge and therefore cannot attract or repel one-another.

if you can now take away the visible  image of the gas cloud and replace it with the image of a field, there is no difference in the physics involved, the polarised field will expand in accordance with the physics involved.

Electric fields themselves are not charged, so no such thing will happen.

The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.  i.e no measured charge.  However the independent properties of polarities remain but measure a null result. A+B=N   

N=A+B 

Measuring both at the same time can only give a null result.

added

-e+e=0=N

[Kryptid]

The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.  i.e no measured charge.  However the independent properties of polarities remain but measure a null result. A+B=N   

N=A+B 

Measuring both at the same time can only give a null result.

added

-e+e=0=N

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm telling you that even a field around an object that does have a net charge (such as an electron) does not repel itself and expand. Electric fields do not have charge regardless of whether the object that produces them is positive, negative or neutral. They transmit the effects of the charged particles that produce them but are not charged themselves. They are the messengers but they are not the ones writing the message.

[guest39538]

The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.  i.e no measured charge.  However the independent properties of polarities remain but measure a null result. A+B=N   

N=A+B 

Measuring both at the same time can only give a null result.

added

-e+e=0=N

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm telling you that even a field around an object that does have a net charge (such as an electron) does not repel itself and expand. Electric fields do not have charge regardless of whether the object that produces them is positive, negative or neutral. They transmit the effects of the charged particles that produce them but are not charged themselves. They are the messengers but they are not the ones writing the message.

Object?  You are responding in a manner that is still considering existing theories such as the Rutherford model of the atom. 

My theory does not involve particles or objects. My theory looks at objects as if they are energy.

[guest39538]

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm telling you that even a field around an object that does have a net charge (such as an electron)

Because you are not measuring both polities at the same time. A+B=N

A=q1

B=q2

q1+q2 measures N always

[Kryptid]

Object?  You are responding in a manner that is still considering existing theories such as the Rutherford model of the atom. 

My theory does not involve particles or objects. My theory looks at objects as if they are energy.

Then your hypothesis has already been falsified by existing experiments.

Because you are not measuring both polities at the same time. A+B=N

A=q1

B=q2

q1+q2 measures N always

So now you're saying that there is no such thing as net charge? Sorry, but that's wrong. Ions have net charge.

[guest39538]

So now you're saying that there is no such thing as net charge?

Another huh from me, what are you reading ?

[Kryptid]

Another huh from me, what are you reading ?

q1+q2 measures N always

This makes it sound like you are saying that everything has no net charge. Otherwise, you would not have said "always".

[Bored chemist]

The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral. 

It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.

[guest39538]

The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.

It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.

Have you ever thought you are just not smart enough to understand it?

[Bored chemist]

The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.

It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.

Have you ever thought you are just not smart enough to understand it?

Since your ideas are contradicted by reality, my understanding doesn't enter into it.

[guest39538]

The N-field explains that the N stands for neutral.

It explains nothing- because it makes no sense.

Have you ever thought you are just not smart enough to understand it?

Since your ideas are contradicted by reality, my understanding doesn't enter into it.

The reality that you cannot observe a Proton for example?   The reality that the atomic model is based on something you can not observe because atoms are too tiny?

[Kryptid]

The reality that you cannot observe a Proton for example?   The reality that the atomic model is based on something you can not observe because atoms are too tiny?

You don't have to observe something visually in order to detect its presence. We've been able to detect atomic nuclei since the 1900's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment.

[guest39538]

The reality that you cannot observe a Proton for example?   The reality that the atomic model is based on something you can not observe because atoms are too tiny?

You don't have to observe something visually in order to detect its presence. We've been able to detect atomic nuclei since the 1900's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment.

discovered that every atom contains a nucleus where its positive charge and most of its mass are concentrated.

That does not prove the existence of the Proton . 

[Kryptid]

That does not prove the existence of the Proton . 

Have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#History

[guest39538]

That does not prove the existence of the Proton . 

Have a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#History

He named this new fundamental building block of the nucleus the proton,

Which does not prove the nucleus is a particle.

[guest39538]

And here are,

The spontaneous decay of free protons has never been observed

This is what I am on about by the likewise to itself.   Turning into wave energy.

[Kryptid]

Which does not prove the nucleus is a particle.

That depends upon how you define a particle. We know that the nucleus is much, much smaller than the atom as a whole, although it does have fuzzy boundaries. Particles have wave-like properties anyway.

This is what I am on about by the likewise to itself.   Turning into wave energy.

You do realize that the sentence you quoted says that proton decay has not been observed, right? So what does turning into wave energy have to do with that quote?

[guest39538]

You do realize that the sentence you quoted says that proton decay has not been observed, right? So what does turning into wave energy have to do with that quote?

Because you can't observe wave energy which is permeating, it has no density.  Might be able to detect it though.

That depends upon how you define a particle. We know that the nucleus is much, much smaller than the atom as a whole, although it does have fuzzy boundaries. Particles have wave-like properties anyway.

Exactly, the nucleus itself can be just empty space that contains a positive energy.   There is nothing that says that the particle itself exists.  What we know about polarities which could explain a void beneath the surface of ''atoms''.

For example try to imagine an energy ''cloud''  that every point of the cloud was a p+  .  We know that all points would be repulsed by each other.

The above action creating a central void or defined differently  a ''flat spot'' of space.

The waves been ripples emanating from the flat spot.

This is what I 'see' about atoms.

The boundary or surface layer is made of two opposite polarities.   The likewise properties of both polarities creating a central void.   A ''spark''  strobes in this void like crossing terminals on a battery.

The surface layer has elastricity properties, it can contract or expand depending on polarity offset.  For example if the + polarity was to gain energy , it stretches but also stretches - with it.

When the energy is exhausted , it contracts back to form.

The magnitude of the force between polarities playing a vital role in void diameter.

p.s a positive nucleus , all  the negativity of space would be attracted to this point .

[guest39538]

Gravitational mass is directly proportional to the attraction of positivity and negativity of matter to any other positivity and negativity of matter.