[Bored chemist]

An N-field particle is when two individual opposite  polarity fields simulataneously combine, at the same geometric point,  to form a single neutral field particle,  that has quantum physicality due to the mechanics involved.

Word salad.

[Bored chemist]

Methinks the lad hath discovered gravitation.

It could be, but he keeps wittering on about polarity and that doesn't sit well with gravity (which is always attractive).
It hardly matters- there are at least two mechanisms that are well defined which model the way in which neutral things attract eachother. so it's not as if he's adding anything.

[guest39538]

Methinks the lad hath discovered gravitation.

It could be, but he keeps wittering on about polarity and that doesn't sit well with gravity (which is always attractive).
It hardly matters- there are at least two mechanisms that are well defined which model the way in which neutral things attract eachother. so it's not as if he's adding anything.

Gravity is attractive and the repulsion involved is the physicality of objects, the likewise pushes back. 

Imagine a line that was a monopole


........................................................

Try to squeeze this line what happens?

It pushes back

force vectors

←→
F  F

Mr Newtons apple fell to the ground because the negative atomic charge and positive atomic charge of the apple are attracted to their opposites in the ground.
The reason the apple does not fall through the ground is because the negative atomic charge and the positive atomic charge of the ground repulses the likewise atomic charge of the apple..

[guest39538]

Methinks the lad hath discovered gravitation.

Thanks Alan, but I consider what the forums have taught me over the years is what has, maybe discovered gravity, I consider everyone deserves a pat on the back.   

[guest39538]

so it's not as if he's adding anything.

It adds an answer to what gravity is, regardless of any other model , my model describes gravity .   Not to mention the rudiment of energy for any given system, I have not even gone into the n-field yet of discussed n-wave or perturbations of the N-field and n-field being photons.
There is much to discuss , time does not wait for anybody.

Give me some credit MR C, for an amateur , not a bad result and conclusion in only several years of learning.

[guest39538]

For anybody who may not yet understand any of this,

A Neutral object will attract both a negative charge and a positive charge.   All objects have the properties have a negative and positive atomic charge. The properties equate to neutral, so simply neutral is attracted to neutral and that is the mechanics of gravity. 

[Bored chemist]

the repulsion involved is the physicality of objects, the likewise pushes back. 

More word salad

Imagine a line that was a monopole

Make up your mind,
Monopoles are points, so they are not lines.

and so on...

[guest39538]

the repulsion involved is the physicality of objects, the likewise pushes back. 

More word salad

Imagine a line that was a monopole

Make up your mind,
Monopoles are points, so they are not lines.

and so on...

I though mono-pole described a single polarity with no mention of dimension?

[guest39538]

So Mr C, in a Cartesian R³ space you would understand 2 opposite mono-poles occupying the same geometric point?

You would equate a value of N wouldn't you?

If we give the individual mono-poles elements a value of i and j , i + j = N ?


Any other elements of i or j in the R³ space would be automatically attracted to this geometric point would they not?

[Bored chemist]

You would equate a value of N wouldn't you?

What the F*** is N?

2 opposite mono-poles occupying the same geometric point?

No.
Stop trying to do magic.

You also forgot to say what i and j are.

Why don't you try reading stuff before you post it, and asking yourself "have I actually defined all the terms I'm using here?"
Because, when you don't define them you are posting nonsense.

[guest39538]

You would equate a value of N wouldn't you?

What the F*** is N?

2 opposite mono-poles occupying the same geometric point?

No.
Stop trying to do magic.

You also forgot to say what i and j are.

Why don't you try reading stuff before you post it, and asking yourself "have I actually defined all the terms I'm using here?"
Because, when you don't define them you are posting nonsense.

N is obviously neutral Mr C, you have been discussing this long enough now too know the N-field is a neutral field.

I already defined i and j to be opposite mono poles. I guessed you missed that because I put

If we give the individual mono-poles elements a value of i and j , i + j = N ?

Instead of

If we give the individual opposite mono-poles elements a value of i and j , i + j = N ?

No magic , just physics.

e-  =  i

+1e  = j

That simple Mr C

[guest39538]

And one must assume by the laws of physics that

Any other elements of i or j in the R³ space would be automatically attracted to this geometric point i,j.

[Bored chemist]

If we give the individual mono-poles elements a value of

Are you taking the piss?
This "value": is it age, cost, charge, mass, shoe size?


 

e-  =  i

+1e  = j

Now, all you need to do is define e (because I doubt you mean 2.7...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_(mathematical_constant)


It hardly matters.

i + j = N

and

e-  =  i

+1e  = j

So i+j = e-e which is zero- whatever e might be
So N is always zero.
Which might tell us something except you ever explained what N was.

[guest39538]

This "value": is it age, cost, charge, mass, shoe size?

The value is a dimension and existence Mr C.

-e is the sign for the electron Mr C,

+1e is the sign for the proton Mr C.

N is electrically neutral Mr C, it means you measure 0 charge , but you can still measure the force and it equates to G.

p.s it is  (e-)  +  (+1e) = 0 =N

[guest39538]

My pre-edit


A proposal for consideration of a N-field quantum theory.

S.P. Leese, (  Approximately 10 years of experience on science forums)   
Spring 2018


Abstract:

This paper  proposes a theory of events  in a R³ real coordinate space that may   describe the primary source of energy for a given system.    First will be shown is that  the formation of energy is a two part construct , with either part of the processing ,  the mechanics failing to retain form without the co-existence of the counter part.    Second,  a co-existence  shall be established that is governed by simultaneous events at the same geometric point of the R³ coordinate space.   Additionally, such co-existence that may also explain and answer  a normalising that is , “neutral” being attracted to “neutral”, phenomenon of the gravity process.

Definitions and axiomatic information:

Before any discussion can meaningfully continue several contextual definitions must be accepted.  First : the R³ real coordinate space we shall define (a).
  Second : Within (a)  is a volume of geometric positional points.
 Third :  Each point having a value of 0 dimensions.
Forth: Each point  having the abilty to change in value at any random time.
Finally : Let us also define that the electron (e-) = i and the Proton (+1e)  = j .   

Query 1

As defined,  is the following possible?

  i   ∈   (a)

Could i have an independent and distinct existence?

Would all the individual points of i be repulsive to all other points of i?

Would i be in an automatic state of expansion? 


Query 2

As defined,  is the following possible?

j ∈  (a)

Could j have an independent and distinct existence?

Would all the individual points of j be repulsive to all other points of j?

Would j be in an automatic state of expansion? 


Query 3


As defined,  is the following possible?


i,j  ∈   (a)

Could i and j exist as a co-efficient?

Will i ''hold'' j in situate position?

Will j ''hold'' i in situate position?

Will i or j be in a state of expansion?



Propose:Query 1

•  i could not have an independent and distinct existence
•  Utilising Coulomb's law, all points of i would be repulsive to all other points of i.   .
•  Utilising Coulomb's law,  i would be in an immediate state of expansion   
   
Propose: Query 2

•  j could not have an independent and distinct existence
•  Utilising Coulomb's law, all points of j would be repulsive to all other points of j.
•  Utilising Coulomb's law,  j would be in an immediate state of expansion   .
   

Propose:Query 3

•   i and j co-exist such that i sustains j, and j sustains i.
•   utilising Coulomb’s Law, i and j occupy a single geometric location.
•   An expansion would be evident to accommodate a single N-field element.

[Colin2B]

As defined,  is the following possible?

  i   ∈   (a)

This is possible if your definition of a includes some points being electrons

Currently all you have said is:
Second : Within (a)  is a volume of geometric positional points.
 Third :  Each point having a value of 0 dimensions.
To me, geometric positional points means coordinates, which would automatically have 0 dimensions.

Could i have an independent and distinct existence?

That depends on the properties of i.
Lets consider 4 ∈ {2, 4, 6, 8}
Clearly 4 exists as an item in it’s own right and isn’t limited to this particular set. Obviously an electron can exist outside of a defined space eg a box (set)  , but if you are asking if an electron can exist outside spacetime, different question.

Would all the individual points of i be repulsive to all other points of i?

If all the points were electrons then yes

Would i be in an automatic state of expansion? 

Why would an individual i expand?

[guest39538]

Why would an individual i expand?

An individual i has dimensions, therefore has more than one point.

Would all the individual points of i be repulsive to all other points of i?

If all the points were electrons then yes

Quite clearly all points of i would be electron points of the electron, so quite clearly all the points would repulse causing immediate expansion of the points.

[guest39538]

but if you are asking if an electron can exist outside spacetime, different question.

Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.

[guest39538]

I have drawn a model and any attempt to create i results in 0 and expansion


model i.jpg (34.63 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3124 times)

This expansion I will propose in more detail  my next paper , where I add N-waves and n-waves.   

[Colin2B]

Can an electron exist outside of the atom, my answer is no.

You need to caveat this statement with “in the N Field new theory an electron cannot exist outside the atom.

The reason is that in current physics the electron has been observed outside the atom.