[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?

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.

You seem not to understand.
Your other made up stuff suffers the same fault as the made up N field.
You have no  basis for any of them.
so, regarding "Q.F.S and the n-field still remains "
No they don't.

[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.

You seem not to understand.
Your other made up stuff suffers the same fault as the made up N field.
You have no  basis for any of them.
so, regarding "Q.F.S and the n-field still remains "
No they don't.

You seem to be adopting a style of writing

You are right of course I do not understand my own ideas (not).   

Likewise polarities repulse

Likewise polarities are solid relative to each other.

[guest39538]

Straight forward anyway, the cations or anions pull themselves along the magnetic field lines in respect to the sign following the curvature path of the field that curves back towards its opposite sign. In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.

[Bored chemist]

You are right of course I do not understand my own ideas (not).

That's a strawman. I explained what it was that you didn't understand.
You don't seem to have grasped how science works. All your batty ideas fail your own implicit test.

You said "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."
Now you have to accept that the same thing applies to all your ideas.

And this
"Likewise polarities are solid relative to each other."
 is meaningless.

I remind you that you said that nitrogen gas is a solid.

[The Spoon]

In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.

Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake

[guest39538]

You are right of course I do not understand my own ideas (not).

That's a strawman. I explained what it was that you didn't understand.
You don't seem to have grasped how science works. All your batty ideas fail your own implicit test.

You said "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."
Now you have to accept that the same thing applies to all your ideas.

And this
"Likewise polarities are solid relative to each other."
 is meaningless.

I remind you that you said that nitrogen gas is a solid.

I have already said early on this thread that this notion is at an early stage of development.   So obviously it is only subjective thinking at this time until I prove it or have better supporting evidence.

I remind you that you said that nitrogen gas is a solid.

It is relatively solid between two observers. I suppose as it is you I had better explain that the observers are nitrogen atoms/molecules.

[guest39538]

In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.

Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake

Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.

[guest39538]

South magnetic pole at the top?

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

So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?

[Kryptid]

So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?

I'm not particularly sure I understand that sentence. Are you trying to say that a north pole is the same as a positive charge?

[guest39538]

So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?

I'm not particularly sure I understand that sentence. Are you trying to say that a north pole is the same as a positive charge?

Nope I am asking is it possible that the north pole has no polarity but in some way by spin is polarised ?  Similar to ionisation.

added- Put another way, if we had a field that was a stable state and all points of the field were at relative rest in respect to each other, there would be no polarity?

added- Because in a spin cycle , in respect to two sides of a wheel, although the wheel is spinning only one way, relatively each side of the wheel is spinning opposite directions.   

[guest39538]

clockwise.jpg (47.04 kB . 898x572 - viewed 3576 times)

[Kryptid]

So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?

I'm not particularly sure I understand that sentence. Are you trying to say that a north pole is the same as a positive charge?

Nope I am asking is it possible that the north pole has no polarity but in some way by spin is polarised ?  Similar to ionisation.

added- Put another way, if we had a field that was a stable state and all points of the field were at relative rest in respect to each other, there would be no polarity?

added- Because in a spin cycle , in respect to two sides of a wheel, although the wheel is spinning only one way, relatively each side of the wheel is spinning opposite directions.   

If you start defining poles as having no polarity, you've pretty much created a contradiction. Motion is considered an important aspect of magnetism. In a reference frame where an electrically-charged object is moving (or spinning), an observer will observe a magnetic field. Relativity is actually pretty important in explaining the existence of magnetic fields: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0.

[guest39538]

So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?

I'm not particularly sure I understand that sentence. Are you trying to say that a north pole is the same as a positive charge?

Nope I am asking is it possible that the north pole has no polarity but in some way by spin is polarised ?  Similar to ionisation.

added- Put another way, if we had a field that was a stable state and all points of the field were at relative rest in respect to each other, there would be no polarity?

added- Because in a spin cycle , in respect to two sides of a wheel, although the wheel is spinning only one way, relatively each side of the wheel is spinning opposite directions.   

If you start defining poles as having no polarity, you've pretty much created a contradiction. Motion is considered an important aspect of magnetism. In a reference frame where an electrically-charged object is moving (or spinning), an observer will observe a magnetic field. Relativity is actually pretty important in explaining the existence of magnetic fields: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0.

Hmm, before I watched your video link I had drawn this.


cylinder.jpg (21.31 kB . 898x572 - viewed 3621 times)

I will watch the video a few more times then try to find some more questions . Thank you for the education.

[Bored chemist]

Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.

No.
The fruit cake thinks he has corrected time dilation and so on.
Nobody else thinks so.

[Bored chemist]

South magnetic pole at the top?

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

So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?

We know it isn't that, because that doesn't make any sense.
It's like saying "how do we know it is not a stable state field of Tuesday that had gone to bed with left handedness"

[The Spoon]

In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.

Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake

Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.

You have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums.

[guest39538]

In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.

Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake

Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.

You have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums.

Really now, then you can challenge me on time and time dilation can you?  Please feel free to start a challenge thread

[guest39538]

South magnetic pole at the top?

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

So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?

We know it isn't that, because that doesn't make any sense.
It's like saying "how do we know it is not a stable state field of Tuesday that had gone to bed with left handedness"

You really h ave no thinking ability at all.   A calm lake is a stable state until the wind is applied. 

[The Spoon]

In this experiment the magnetic field being a displacement velocity ether.

Is also the meaningless wibblings of a fruitcake

Well this ''fruitcake'' who as corrected the world on time dilation and shown several other things, must be a fruitcake with the best fruit. No grumpy looking raisins like yourself.

You have corrected the world on nothing. You have merely shared some craziness on various forums.

Really now, then you can challenge me on time and time dilation can you?  Please feel free to start a challenge thread

The onus is on you to show your claim to be true.

[The Spoon]

South magnetic pole at the top?

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

So lets look at the north magnetic field ,  how do we know it is not a stable state field of n that is polarised to +?

We know it isn't that, because that doesn't make any sense.
It's like saying "how do we know it is not a stable state field of Tuesday that had gone to bed with left handedness"

You really h ave no thinking ability at all.   A calm lake is a stable state until the wind is applied. 

What about tidal forces or temperature related circulation?