[Kryptid]

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

They have mass and electric charge, both of which are conserved quantities that cannot vanish into nothingness. Due to those conservation laws, we already know what a decaying proton would look like and so far have not seen it.

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''.

No it can't. Even if you want to call protons "positive energy", you're forgetting about neutrons. We know that there are atoms of the same chemical element that have different masses and different fundamental properties. Compare uranium-235 to uranium-238. Both have the same chemical properties but U-238 has heavier nuclei whereas U-235 is able to sustain a neutron chain reaction (unlike U-238). Neutrons are produced by chain reactions. Not only can we detect them, but we know from experiment what neutron energy levels are optimum to sustain a chain reaction in U-235.

Speaking of nuclear reactions, your model doesn't account for them. Atomic nuclei are not merely held together by electrostatic forces, because the energy released in nuclear reactions is much, much stronger than the energy released when molecules react (and molecules are held together by electrostatic forces). We know that the force which holds nuclei together is much, much shorter-ranged than the electromagnetic force because you can't get light nuclei to stick together unless you get them very close to each other (i.e. nuclear fusion).

[guest39538]

you're forgetting about neutrons.

Again a speculation particle which the extra mass can be explained as F²  because m1 is attracted to m2 and m2 is equally attracted to m1, both are applying a force of attraction so the force is times 2.   A 1kg object is only actually 1/2 that mass because the other half is the other pull  from another object.

[Kryptid]

Again a speculation particle which the extra mass can be explained as F²  because m1 is attracted to m2 and m2 is equally attracted to m1, both are applying a force of attraction so the force is times 2.   A 1kg object is only actually 1/2 that mass because the other half is the other pull  from another object.

Interesting how you completely ignored the meat of my post. You didn't address how different isotopes can exist in your model without neutrons or how sustained nuclear chain reactions are possible without neutrons.You realize that many nuclei are not merely twice the mass of their proton content, right? Hydrogen is a good example of this. The tritium isotope is 2.99 times as massive as the protium isotope even though both isotopes have identical degrees of positive charge in their nuclei. There are also some other issues:

(1) How was the half-life of free neutrons (881.5 seconds) determined if they don't exist?
(2) How is it that free neutrons can be generated on demand if they don't exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_generator
(3) How can the mass of free neutrons be measured (939.6 MeV/c²) if they don't exist? Take note that I am not talking about neutrons in a nucleus. Neutrons have a different mass in the nucleus than they do when they are free.
(4) How can neutron cross sections be measured if neutrons don't exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_cross_section
(5) What are neutron detectors detecting if not neutrons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_detection
(6) How is it that exposure to neutron radiation can make things radioactive if neutrons don't exist?

Here's some additional reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_the_neutron#Discovery_of_the_neutron, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_detection

[The Spoon]

you're forgetting about neutrons.

Again a speculation particle which the extra mass can be explained as F²  because m1 is attracted to m2 and m2 is equally attracted to m1, both are applying a force of attraction so the force is times 2.   A 1kg object is only actually 1/2 that mass because the other half is the other pull  from another object.

Absolute crap.

[The Spoon]

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 .

What you 'see about atoms'. In other words what you imagine they look like based on your lack of basic scientific understanding and mad conceptualisation of the world.
'Likewise to itself' is just mangling the English language.

[Bored chemist]

you're forgetting about neutrons.

Again a speculation particle ...

If you want to pretend that neutrons don't exist, you don't just have to explain the mass.
You also have to explain neutron diffraction, nuclear power, atom bombs, and neuron actuation as well as lots of other things that neutrons are actually observed to do.

You don't get to pick and choose about what bits of reality are real.

[guest39538]

. You didn't address how different isotopes can exist in your model without neutrons or how sustained nuclear chain reactions are possible without neutrons.

You expect a lot from an amateur scientist and a young notion ,from a person who is does not know all science.

[guest39538]

you're forgetting about neutrons.

Again a speculation particle which the extra mass can be explained as F²  because m1 is attracted to m2 and m2 is equally attracted to m1, both are applying a force of attraction so the force is times 2.   A 1kg object is only actually 1/2 that mass because the other half is the other pull  from another object.

Absolute crap.

A bit like some of the accepted science then hey, such as time dilation?

It is a young notion so at this time it probably is a bit crappy.

[guest39538]

you're forgetting about neutrons.

Again a speculation particle ...

If you want to pretend that neutrons don't exist, you don't just have to explain the mass.
You also have to explain neutron diffraction, nuclear power, atom bombs, and neuron actuation as well as lots of other things that neutrons are actually observed to do.

You don't get to pick and choose about what bits of reality are real.

What I can't work out is how science got so lucky  being so right and wrong at the same time.

[guest39538]

'Likewise to itself' is just mangling the English language.

No it is not,  if you look in a mirror the image is likewise to yourself.   If there is cube made up of atoms and all the atoms becomes cations, then all the atoms are likewise to themselves.
pfff learn how to read.

[Kryptid]

You expect a lot from an amateur scientist and a young notion ,from a person who is does not know all science.

Of course I do. When you claim that your model is definitely correct, you'd better bet that I'm going ask the hard questions. If your model can't explain phenomena that the existing model can, then it's already been falsified.

[guest39538]

You expect a lot from an amateur scientist and a young notion ,from a person who is does not know all science.

Of course I do. When you claim that your model is definitely correct, you'd better bet that I'm going ask the hard questions. If your model can't explain phenomena that the existing model can, then it's already been falsified.

But when you own science contradicts your own model, it is time to look for an alternative model.

Start here with this premise:

Premise:  A single polarity energy/field would expand by own it's mechanism of being likewise throughout of itself.

[Kryptid]

But when you own science contradicts your own model...

How so?

Start here with this premise:

Premise:  A single polarity energy/field would expand by own it's mechanism of being likewise throughout of itself.

That doesn't happen in real life so your premise is already flawed. The field around a magnet stays the same size. It doesn't expand.

[guest39538]

That doesn't happen in real life so your premise is already flawed. The field around a magnet stays the same size. It doesn't expand.

The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole according to the contradiction of your own

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

The law has been tested extensively, and all observations have upheld the law's principle.

This here says my first premise has call for questioning.

You and I both know likewise polarities mean expansion.   If all points of a field were likewise in polarity, the field will expand according to physical laws. If it doe snot expand then it is not a single pole field.

[guest39538]

''You'' are telling me a likewise field does not expand but on the other hand saying likewise repulses.

That is a contradiction.

[guest39538]

pe.jpg (35.25 kB . 898x572 - viewed 3386 times)

According to the laws these two fields do this.   All points of each field being likewise in polarity to itself.

added:

Electron field F₁=q-=>4/3 πr³

Proton field F₁=q+=>4/3 πr³

[Bored chemist]

The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole

Nobody said it was.

[guest39538]

The field around a magnet is not and cannot be a single pole

Nobody said it was.

I see you still  have no good arguments or discussion.

[guest39538]

In Q.F.S  an electron field is relatively solid to another electron field because they are both likewise.

A Proton field is solid relatively to another Proton field.


A Proton field is not solid to an electron field.

An electron field is not solid to a proton field.


A stable state is A+B=N

All points of a negative field are attracted to all points of a positive field and vice versus. The merge produces the N-field where energy is at it's densest.


added- can be demonstrated using magnets.

[guest39538]

F = GN₁N₂/r²