[guest39538]

added thought - two opposite polarity ''energies'' can occupy the same point simultaneously.

[Bored chemist]

added thought - two opposite polarity ''energies'' can occupy the same point simultaneously.

What do you think that sentence means?

[guest39538]

added thought - two opposite polarity ''energies'' can occupy the same point simultaneously.

What do you think that sentence means?

It means 0 point energy or a 0 point N-field ''particle'' that occupies the same 0 point at the same time.

added - When a N-field is split , the independent ''energies'' disperse into wave pE  by the sphericalisation process. 

[Bored chemist]

What do you think "zero point energy" means?

[guest39538]

What do you think "zero point energy" means?

It means geometrical points of space that have 0 dimension where it is hard to imagine something from nothing manifesting. It is the point of ''creation'' which in an infinite universe is the relative centre of each observers universe. 
However I do not agree that a 0 point energy is lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have.  E would be at it's densest at 0 point in accordance with the transverse square law and the sphericalisation process. 

[Bored chemist]

What do you think "zero point energy" means?

It means geometrical points of space that have 0 dimension where it is hard to imagine something from nothing manifesting. It is the point of ''creation'' which in an infinite universe is the relative centre of each observers universe. 
However I do not agree that a 0 point energy is lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have.  E would be at it's densest at 0 point in accordance with the transverse square law and the sphericalisation process. 

So, nothing to do with what everyone else means by zero point energy.

Do you understand why that makes it very difficult to understand what you are posting?

[guest39538]

So, nothing to do with what everyone else means by zero point energy.

Is English your native language/ are you reading something else?  always this I can't understand lark from you.   Stop trolling.

Zero-point energy (ZPE) or ground state energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have. ... Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding zero-point energy, in particular the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention.

Guess what?  I understand it and it is not the lowest measure.

Energy is at its densest at the central point of sphericalisation.  Following the inverse square law , the wave energy weakens over a distance .  The strong force is always central where the weakened force is dynamic and drops off over a distance to where 0 applies.

E= where S is equal to 0³ of space.

[Kryptid]

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.

Coulomb's law describes what happens between electrically-charged objects. The existing model posits that electromagnetic fields are made up of virtual photons. Photons do not have any electric charge. Coulomb's law therefore does not apply to them. The "contradiction" is all in your head.

[Bored chemist]

English is my native language.

I asked you what you thought ZPE meant and you said "It means geometrical points of space that have 0 dimension where it is hard to imagine something from nothing manifesting. It is the point of ''creation'' which in an infinite universe is the relative centre of each observers universe.  "

And that is nothing to do with the conventional definition which is this
"Zero-point energy (ZPE) or ground state energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have."

When you start making up definitions like that it is you who is abusing the language, rather than me.

[Bored chemist]

Guess what?  I understand it and it is not the lowest measure.

No you don't.

[Bored chemist]

Energy is at its densest at the central point of sphericalisation.  Following the inverse square law , the wave energy weakens over a distance .  The strong force is always central where the weakened force is dynamic and drops off over a distance to where 0 applies.

E= where S is equal to 0³ of space.

Word salad.

[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.

Coulomb's law describes what happens between electrically-charged objects. The existing model posits that electromagnetic fields are made up of virtual photons. Photons do not have any electric charge. Coulomb's law therefore does not apply to them. The "contradiction" is all in your head.

Electromagnetic fields have polarity and are not made up of photons. Are you denying that magnets have poles?

Therefore the slip in insight is yours.

[guest39538]

Energy is at its densest at the central point of sphericalisation.  Following the inverse square law , the wave energy weakens over a distance .  The strong force is always central where the weakened force is dynamic and drops off over a distance to where 0 applies.

E= where S is equal to 0³ of space.

Word salad.

Because you say so, it is only word salad if you do not understand it.  I expect about only the top 5% in the world would understand it.

[Bored chemist]

Energy is at its densest at the central point of sphericalisation.  Following the inverse square law , the wave energy weakens over a distance .  The strong force is always central where the weakened force is dynamic and drops off over a distance to where 0 applies.

E= where S is equal to 0³ of space.

Word salad.

Because you say so, it is only word salad if you do not understand it.  I expect about only the top 5% in the world would understand it.

How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?

Do you understand the phrase "delusions of grandeur"?

[Bored chemist]

Electromagnetic fields have polarity and are not made up of photons.

Yes they are.
Anyone with a decent understanding of physics would know that. You don't.
You don't understand physics.

[guest39538]

Electromagnetic fields have polarity and are not made up of photons.

Yes they are.
Anyone with a decent understanding of physics would know that. You don't.
You don't understand physics.

Photons are a hypothetical virtual particle .   Fields are made of dark energy, visible light is an invert in the dark energy field(s), an invert to cause the field to wave Q.F.F . 
You don't understand Physics that is why you are a chemist.

[guest39538]

Do you understand the phrase "delusions of grandeur"?

Have I heard of delusions of grandeur?  hmm... of course. 

I notice you can't attack the physics involved in the N-field and Q.F.S

[Bored chemist]

I notice you can't attack the physics involved in the N-field and Q.F.S

There isn't any physics to attack.

I see you forgot to answer my question.
How have you come to the conclusion that, though you don't actually understand basic science, you are somehow in the top 5%?

[Kryptid]

Electromagnetic fields have polarity and are not made up of photons.

Remember, we are talking about the existing model here. Your original claim is that the currently-accepted model contradicts itself. You claim that this is so because a field is supposed to repel itself due to Coulomb's law. However, Coulomb's law posits that objects with the same electric charge repel each other. The current model posits that fields are composed of entities that are not electrically-charged (i.e. photons). Since they are not charged, Coulomb's law does not say that the particles in a field are supposed to repel each other. The existing model does not contradict itself because it does not posit what you claim that it posits. This is what we call the "straw-man fallacy".

Are you denying that magnets have poles?

No, I am not denying that magnets have poles. What I am denying is that you can apply the properties of the magnet to the properties of the magnetic field itself. The field is merely the way that the poles communicate with each other.

[guest39538]

There isn't any physics to attack.

bs