[Bored chemist]

Putting simply  I am a genius and most of you are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[guest39538]

Putting simply  I am a genius and most of you are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
[/qu

Putting simply  I am a genius and most of you are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

You wished, then I would not be such a ''nightmare'' to the stereotypical scientist. Pure logic , something in which you lack.

[Kryptid]

Who said scientists?

Alright, not the top 5% of scientists, but the top 5% of everyone. About 5% of the population scores above 125 on IQ tests. I once took an IQ test as a child and came out as 136. I guess that makes me in the top 5% too. I guess you're not so special.

Of course nitrogen gas is a solid relative to nitrogen gas.

"Solid" is a state of matter. The better word to use here is "tangible".

In my story, I am the hero of the story, so I have to be smarter than the ''enemy'' or I would not be the hero of my story.

Everybody is the "hero" of their own story, but that doesn't automatically make them right.

Well strangely enough I have not met anyone yet on these forums who can out think me.

Says the guy who thought a piece of modern art was proof of aliens. Please, try to be more humble.

You wished, then I would not be such a ''nightmare'' to the stereotypical scientist.

Whoever said you were? Most scientists probably don't even know you exist.

Feel free to address my last post about electrons and protons if you want to continue.

[guest39538]

They are slightly different. Protons, unlike electrons, have internal structure in the form of quarks which are strongly bound together by gluon fields. The very strong attractive forces between the quarks keeps protons stable (or metastable, if they do in fact decay after an extremely long time period).

Completely subjective.   If there were 3 quarks they would repulse each other.   

I would also like to point out that the idea of a subatomic particle spontaneously expanding would imply that its associated wavelength will expand too. Since an increase in wavelength means a decrease in energy, a particle cannot expand without destroying energy.

HUh?  it expands into potential wave energy ,  how do you conclude it destroys energy? It changes form that's all.


''Quarks'' are likewise to each other in polarity, they would repulse each other so can not be so.

[Kryptid]

Completely subjective.

Not at all. We have the experimental evidence for them. Even before quarks were detected, they were hypothesized to explain the existence of the "particle zoo" of hadrons. Once the model was pieced together, it became obvious that another particle must exist which was composed of a combination of quarks not yet seen (three "strange" quarks). That is, if the quark model was correct, then it should be possible to produce this particular particle (which was called the omega minus). The mass,and decay products were predicted in advance and those predictions were based on the quark model in 1961. The omega minus was finally discovered in 1964, giving good support for the quark model.

Quarks were first seen directly in deep inelastic scattering experiments. Since particles become smaller (i.e. have a shorter wavelength) the more energy they have, very energetic particles like high speed electrons can be used to probe the internal structure of objects even if they are as small as a proton. The trajectory and velocity of these particles after the collision reveals information about what they are scattering off of. Slamming energetic electrons against protons revealed that the electrons were not scattering off of a single object, but actually three objects, just as the quark model predicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering.

If there were 3 quarks they would repulse each other.

The electrostatic repulsion is more than made up for by the strong nuclear force holding the quarks together. Besides, some quarks have a positive charge and some a negative charge.

HUh?  it expands into potential wave energy

What is potential wave energy?

how do you conclude it destroys energy? It changes form that's all.

The "size" of a subatomic particle is strongly correlated with its wavelength (which in turn is linked to its energy). Change one and you change the other.

[guest39538]

Not at all. We have the experimental evidence for them. Even before quarks were detected, they were hypothesized to explain the existence of the "particle zoo" of hadrons. Once the model was pieced together, it became obvious that another particle must exist which was composed of a combination of quarks not yet seen (three "strange" quarks). That is, if the quark model was correct, then it should be possible to produce this particular particle (which was called the omega minus). The mass,and decay products were predicted in advance and those predictions were based on the quark model in 1961. The omega minus was finally discovered in 1964, giving good support for the quark model.

Quarks were first seen directly in deep inelastic scattering experiments. Since particles become smaller (i.e. have a shorter wavelength) the more energy they have, very energetic particles like high speed electrons can be used to probe the internal structure of objects even if they are as small as a proton. The trajectory and velocity of these particles after the collision reveals information about what they are scattering off of. Slamming energetic electrons against protons revealed that the electrons were not scattering off of a single object, but actually three objects, just as the quark model predicted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering.

First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.
You say the Quarks are  held together by this magic force that overrides the electrostatic repulsion of the likewise forces. Without a direct observation these are no more than ''God'' theories, to say something exists without direct proof is just fooling oneself.

What is potential wave energy?

Potential energy that has permeated that much it has no density. However transversely it be can be regathered .

[Kryptid]

First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark.

Yet that's exactly what particle accelerators do. It's not any different than looking at an object with your own eyes. You can observe and deduce the properties of an object by detecting the light reflecting off of it with your eyes. In exactly the same way, particle accelerators observe and deduce the properties of objects by detecting the particles reflecting off of them and into their detectors. The only difference is the medium doing the measuring (light vs. charged particles) and the size scale (macroscopic vs. sub-microscopic).

The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.

Then your N-field is entirely hypothetical, because you've never made a positive ID of an electron field merging with a proton field to produce an N-field by observation. I guess that means that you believe that the realm of the sub-microscopic will forever be a mystery and that any explanation for what happens at that level will never be more than a mere hypothesis because we will never see things at that scale "directly".

You say the Quarks are  held together by this magic force that overrides the electrostatic repulsion of the likewise forces.

The gluon, the particle that mediates the strong force, has had plenty of its properties measured by experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon#Experimental_observations.

If protons are not composed of smaller particles, then how does your model explain the results of the deep inelastic scattering experiments? How were the instruments fooled into detecting three objects if there was only one? How were scientists able to accurately predict the existence and properties of the omega minus particle before it was discovered?

Without a direct observation these are no more than ''God'' theories, to say something exists without direct proof is just fooling oneself.

That certainly applies to your N-field. You've never had a direct observation of it.

Potential energy that has permeated that much it has no density. However transversely it be can be regathered .

An object with a finite energy density cannot spread out enough to reach no density. That would require it to spread infinitely.

[guest39538]

How were the instruments fooled into detecting three objects if there was only one? How were scientists able to accurately predict the existence and properties of the omega minus particle before it was discovered?

I would not be sure, maybe I do not know enough at this time to give an answer.  I do not really understand the proof you offer so it is hard to say. 
I think you may have just destroyed my N-field but you certainty have not destroyed my n-field or Q.F.S .

Please tell me what you know about the earths electromagnetic field, for example I am in England, when I look around me , what polarity am I observing at my location?


I think I observe an electron-proton field both polarities. A+B=n

[Kryptid]

I would not be sure, maybe I do not know enough at this time to give an answer.  I do not really understand the proof you offer so it is hard to say.

The results of that experiment are described in this video. It describes what new phenomena were observed as the energy levels used to probe the proton go higher and higher. It can, admittedly, be difficult to understand the explanations at times. If you can withstand the robotic Ringo Starr voice that is used in the video, it should at least be somewhat illuminating. Start watching it at minute 44:

you certainty have not destroyed my n-field or Q.F.S

Then at least you must relegate it to the realm of a hypothesis, since by your own admission anything that has not had a positive ID by observation is just a hypothesis.

Please tell me what you know about the earths electromagnetic field, for example I am in England, when I look around me , what polarity am I observing at my location?

I would say that you'd have a north magnetic pole in England, but I can't be sure of that because there can be a lot of local variations in a magnetic field because the Earth is not uniform. Its strength certainly isn't: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84266

I think I observe an electron-proton field both polarities. A+B=n

Of course you have both polarities when an electron and proton are involved. What shape does your model predict atoms should be? By what reasoning should they have that given shape?

[guest39538]

I would not be sure, maybe I do not know enough at this time to give an answer.  I do not really understand the proof you offer so it is hard to say.

The results of that experiment are described in this video. It describes what new phenomena were observed as the energy levels used to probe the proton go higher and higher. It can, admittedly, be difficult to understand the explanations at times. If you can withstand the robotic Ringo Starr voice that is used in the video, it should at least be somewhat illuminating. Start watching it at minute 44:

you certainty have not destroyed my n-field or Q.F.S

Then at least you must relegate it to the realm of a hypothesis, since by your own admission anything that has not had a positive ID by observation is just a hypothesis.

Please tell me what you know about the earths electromagnetic field, for example I am in England, when I look around me , what polarity am I observing at my location?

I would say that you'd have a north magnetic pole in England, but I can't be sure of that because there can be a lot of local variations in a magnetic field because the Earth is not uniform. Its strength certainly isn't: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=84266

I think I observe an electron-proton field both polarities. A+B=n

Of course you have both polarities when an electron and proton are involved. What shape does your model predict atoms should be? By what reasoning should they have that given shape?

I have stopped temporarily to discuss 4.35s into the video where the ray are split into 3. Now to me, they would only split if they were likewise in polarity?

[Kryptid]

I have stopped temporarily to discuss 4.35s into the video where the ray are split into 3. Now to me, they would only split if they were likewise in polarity?

Unfortunately, I don't know what part in the video you are talking about. Do you mean 44:35?

[guest39538]

I have stopped temporarily to discuss 4.35s into the video where the ray are split into 3. Now to me, they would only split if they were likewise in polarity?

Unfortunately, I don't know what part in the video you are talking about. Do you mean 44:35?

No 4 mins 10 seconds onwards. It says it emits a beam and the beam splits into 3.

[Kryptid]

No 4 mins 10 seconds onwards. It says it emits a beam and the beam splits into 3.

Oh, I see now. No, the reason that they split up is because each kind of radiation reacts differently to a magnetic field. Gamma rays have no electric charge or magnetic poles and so do not react to the applied magnetic field at all. Alpha rays are positively-charged and beta rays are negatively-charged, so they both react in opposite ways to the applied magnetic field, bending in opposite directions.

[guest39538]

Alpha rays are positively-charged and beta rays are negatively-charged, so they both react in opposite ways to the applied magnetic field, bending in opposite directions.[/quot]

Ok , what is the polarity of the magnetic field?

[Bored chemist]

First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.

So, all that nonsense you have spouted throughout this thread can also be disregarded and the thread closed?

Or are you saying there's something special about your made up ( and unsupported) stuff that makes it better than the current (supported) theories?
If so, what?

[Bored chemist]

Alpha rays are positively-charged and beta rays are negatively-charged, so they both react in opposite ways to the applied magnetic field, bending in opposite directions.[/quot]

Ok , what is the polarity of the magnetic field?

Typically perpendicular to the paper on which the mage is drawn.
If you knew enough physics to hold a meaningful conversation about it, you could work out which way the magnetic field is pointing.

[Kryptid]

Ok , what is the polarity of the magnetic field?

Both poles are present. The path of charged particles are curved into circles when they move through a magnetic field (but in the animation, the particles hit a target before they can make a complete circle). Here's how the direction of the curve is found:

[guest39538]

First of all just no, there is not a microscope or device good enough to observe a proton directly let alone a quark. The existence is entirely hypothetical unless there is a positive I.D by observation.

So, all that nonsense you have spouted throughout this thread can also be disregarded and the thread closed?

Or are you saying there's something special about your made up ( and unsupported) stuff that makes it better than the current (supported) theories?
If so, what?

Shrugs shoulders and looks up to the sky for an answer. ...............Q.F.S and the n-field still remains although the N-field may not.

The n-field would be the unification of invisible fields that permeate into space.

[guest39538]

Ok , what is the polarity of the magnetic field?

Both poles are present. The path of charged particles are curved into circles when they move through a magnetic field (but in the animation, the particles hit a target before they can make a complete circle). Here's how the direction of the curve is found:

South magnetic pole at the top?

[Kryptid]

South magnetic pole at the top?

I believe so. Correct me if I'm wrong, Bored Chemist.