[Bored chemist]

said it was a positive mono-pole integer, integer does mean interior?

You now need to say what you mean by " positive mono-pole integer"
And, re. "integer does mean interior?".
No, an integer is a whole number with no fractions or decimals.
That's part of the problem with your foolish refusal to start by learning the basics.

[guest39538]

said it was a positive mono-pole integer, integer does mean interior?

You now need to say what you mean by " positive mono-pole integer"
And, re. "integer does mean interior?".
No, an integer is a whole number with no fractions or decimals.
That's part of the problem with your foolish refusal to start by learning the basics.

There is no refusal, a whole number is a ''volume'' in a matrix, the interior, I know a whole number is an integer.

I thought a mono-pole positive would be self explanatory, I will just say an electron or Proton if it helps?


The obvious problem is will people understand i = 1 and j = 1,    i+j = i,j=1

You are good at chemistry, how would you explain two individual substances merging to become 1?

[Bored chemist]

OK, so now you need to explain what you think this means.

a ''volume'' in a matrix, the interior

[guest39538]

OK, so now you need to explain what you think this means.

a ''volume'' in a matrix, the interior

It means to me, the interior of the defined parameters of the matrix , i.e 1*1*1 or m*m*m  or m*n or n*n etc.

[Bored chemist]

OK, so now you need to explain what you think this means.

the interior of the defined parameters of the matrix

[guest39538]

OK, so now you need to explain what you think this means.

the interior of the defined parameters of the matrix

lol are you joking?  The parameters of the Matrix are the boundary and within that  boundary. Defined often by numbers.

So if I define the boundary parameter as  1*1*1  and the interior parameter as 1,    I think you can work out that the 1 is 3 dimensional and fills the interior of the boundary parameter.  i.e a volume equal to real numbers R³. 

ok?

[Bored chemist]

The parameters of the Matrix are the boundary and within that  boundary.

What boundary?

[guest39538]

The parameters of the Matrix are the boundary and within that  boundary.

What boundary?

The boundary defined by the Matrix's dimensions R³ = m * m * m = 1*1*1 for example

[Bored chemist]

The boundary defined by the Matrix's dimensions R³ = m * m * m = 1*1*1 for example

That's nonsense because a matrix only has two dimensions.

And if you abandoned your policy of refusing to learn the basics, you might have known that and not wasted all this time.

[guest39538]

The boundary defined by the Matrix's dimensions R³ = m * m * m = 1*1*1 for example

That's nonsense because a matrix only has two dimensions.

And if you abandoned your policy of refusing to learn the basics, you might have known that and not wasted all this time.

Huh, a R²  has two dimensions  x,y , a R³ has 3 dimensions  x,y,z

[Bored chemist]

What do you think  R3 is?

[guest39538]

I can only keep improving ....

Title -  Quantum N-field theory .

Author - S.P. Leese

Abstract - This paper is a theory of a R³ real coordinate space  energy Matrix,  an energy matrix  used to describe the primary source of energy for a system.  This paper is intended to show how the energy of the Universe is formed and powers the Universe. .  Showing that this formation of energy is a construct of two parts. Neither part of the process having the mechanics  to  retain form without the co-existence of their opposite sign.     A co-existence Matrix that is governed by simultaneous manifestations at the same geometrical point . A co-existence that also explains and answers the mechanics of the gravity process  returning the conclusion of that neutral is attracted to neutral .  This paper also contests the present atomic model by creating a paradox(s).   Proof's given in the form of three matrices with the corresponding equations.

Introduction.  

The aim of this  paper is to show ostensible content and a paradox of present information.  Things that are ostensible are extremely difficult to show , things that appear to be true to most people will take some serious convincing the information is otherwise. 
In showing the ostensible content, I hope to also show gravity mechanism by the ''truer'' content I provide. The ''truer'' content having no ostensible, appearing to be true, because it is true and of axiom values.

Main text

Let us begin and for the  purposes of this discussion, be clear in our minds what I mean by a  R³ real coordinate space Matrix.   For the purpose of understanding, I define the Matrix as a real volume of space  that has  X,Y and Z dimensions.  Within the 3-dimensional defined boundary is a 3 dimensional array of coordinate values and/or elements.  In my presentation I will present three individual 1*1*1 matrices labelled a,b and c.  Within  matrix a and b will be two individual integer elements i and j ,  let a = i and let b = j.   In matrix c there will be merged elements i and j,  let c = a + b = ci,j.
Last but not least let i = postive polarity and let j = negative polarity .

 My first question is , can i exist in a  single matrix a?  Now quite clearly all the coordinate points of  Matrix a,  would be repulsive points to all other points of the same Matrix a.   By the laws of Physics and Coulomb's laws ,   Matrix  a should always be in a state of expansion.
 Matrix a would have no strong nuclear force or gravity.   All the force would be ''centrifugal'' (outwards from a central point) , leaving a central void.

Which brings me to my first equation : 

a = {i}

i = 1

a + (-i) = 0 


Now ladies and gentlemen, the above equation quite clearly shows that Matrix a,  cannot retain form  and will ''disperse'' directly proportionally to the inverse on any attempt to create the Matrix.  Thus creating a Paradox of the existence of a Proton as presented in the present model.
How can a Proton Matrix exist when all the points of the Matrix would be likewise in polarity throughout the Matrix?

This leads us to our next equation and a look at  Matrix b, one must assume  a ⇔ b .


b = [j]

j = 1

b + (-j)  = 0

Now ladies and gentlemen, the above equation quite clearly shows that Matrix b, also cannot retain form and will ''disperse'' directly proportionally to the inverse.   Therefore any attempt to create matrix b, will also result in failure.  This creating our second Paradox, how can an electron Matrix exist when all the points of the Matrix are likewise in polarity throughout the matrix?

Let us now enter Matrix c into the discussion and the following equation


(a+b) = c

(i + j) =  1

Now ladies and gentlemen you may already 'see' an error in my equation, an ''error'' that is intentional that will allow me to explain.

I already stated that i = 1 and j = 1, so the summation of i + j should equal 2 and not (i + j ) = 1 that I previosly stated.   However this is a special case where

i = 0.5i,j  and j = 0.5 i,j  therefore    (a + b ) =  (i + j) = (1+1) = (0.5 + 0.5)=(ci,j)=1


 Now ladies and gentlemen, Matrix c can be created and does retain form because opposites attract, this allows the Matrix to have Physicality  that Paradox's  the existing atomic model.

[guest39538]

What do you think  R3 is?

Real coordinate space.

[Bored chemist]

OK, and why do you think it's a matrix?
(Spoiler alert- it isn't)
Each point (or set of points in) it in it can be labelled with a matrix. That matrix has 2 dimensions- columns and rows.

[guest39538]

Each point (or set of points in) it in it can be labelled with a matrix. That matrix has 2 dimensions- columns and rows.

That is a bit un-advanced.  Does it really matter as long as I explain the context of use?

Why can't we have a 3 dimensional matrix?

I understand what you are saying but 3d is doable.

[Bored chemist]

Why can't we have a 3 dimensional matrix?

Because it's not a matrix- for example, the rukes of matrix multiplication couldn't be applied to it.

Does it really matter as long as I explain the context of use?

You have barely explained anything yet.

I understand what you are saying but 3d is doable

Quite possibly, but since the maths for it is, as yet, undefined, you can't reasonably say that you have done anything yet.

[guest39538]

Why can't we have a 3 dimensional matrix?

Because it's not a matrix- for example, the rukes of matrix multiplication couldn't be applied to it.

Does it really matter as long as I explain the context of use?

You have barely explained anything yet.

I understand what you are saying but 3d is doable

Quite possibly, but since the maths for it is, as yet, undefined, you can't reasonably say that you have done anything yet.

pfffff, its hard to please.     Ok I will re-word yet again and change everything to suit .  I will use a R³ coordinate space  and define the space to have an inner array .

It hardly matters the outcome is the same and neutral will always be attracted to neutral.   I have given science the information, they should be able do the rest, can' t I just be excused ?

[Bored chemist]

define the space to have an inner array

You will need to explain that.

I have given science the information,

You have given nothing but nonsense.

neutral will always be attracted to neutral.

And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.

[guest39538]

define the space to have an inner array

You will need to explain that.

I have given science the information,

You have given nothing but nonsense.

neutral will always be attracted to neutral.

And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.

Now I am sure you are just trolling, go find somebody else speak too, you can go be bored elsewhere.

[guest39538]

neutral will always be attracted to neutral.
And yet, they are not.
That's why things bounce off eachother.

And they bounce of each other because Neutral pushes back as in Newtons third law, don't you know anything Mr Chemist?

The forces involved in my merged  i,j ''matrix''

i →F ← j

j→F←i

i←F→i

j←F→J

Now do the maths Mr Chemist lets go get our noble prize .  you know the idea and you are not stupid, I bet you could do my maths I need in minutes?


Explain

[i,j]→g←[i,j]

[i,j] ←F→[i,j] pushes back

G= (i,j)(i,j)/r²