[guest39538]

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

Ok, hmmmm, a momentary pause in theory and questions arise.

please define a mono-pole?

An electron would be a mono-pole or a volume of mono-poles?

Did ''you'' detect a mono-pole or mono-poles?

Or did you detect a n-wave?  (which is an annihilated electron)

p.s Please provide a link that shows an electrons independent existence outside of the atom!

added- Just to define, a charge mono-pole.

Quite clearly a charge mono-pole volume would self annihilate by  it's own mechanism of likewise force , turning the ''manifestation'' into wave energy , that ''dispersed'' inversely proportional to the square of the distance.   

If it does not, then there is something wrong with Coulombs law and it would be contradictory to the law of likewise polarity repulses.

All points of an electron R³ space, would be repulsive to all other points, making the possibility of a sustained volume, an impossibility.

[alancalverd]

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.

Bad idea. You are unlikely to arrive at a truth if you begin with a lie.

[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.

Bad idea. You are unlikely to arrive at a truth if you begin with a lie.

Please provide a link for the electrons independent existence outside of the atom?  I cannot find one.


I am not lieing either, the physics tells us what is what, I do not make up the physics.

The simple question is , could you place a mono-pole next to a likewise mono-pole without it automatically displacing when  you let go?

The answer no, so how can you have an independent electron volume externally of the atom?

Added -  Unless you was to claim that electron points in our R³ space have opposite signs? 

In which I would ask for some sort of proofs of a Lepton.
 
If that were the case , then there could not be motion, the universe would be still because everything would be ''solid'' like and all would be repulsive.

Added - no, a big no, on the basis of a Lepton all electrons would be attracted to all electrons because my N-field theory would also work if I based it solely on the Lepton.

That is not evident, electrons repulse electrons so can not be i + j because they have no gravity.

Conclusion, no lepton, back to theory


propose

A lepton would have gravity if it had two opposite signs and attract other Leptons 

evidence

Repulsive force of likewise sets of points  , that may suggest an impossibility of a Lepton having opposite signs of points.

added- Let us look at two sets of leptons, (a) and (b) , each set is made up of elements i and j .

Now let us add the force vectors

(a)→←(b)

a is attracted to b and repulsed when the r=0.


So quite clearly (a) cannot have both  i + j

because adding the force vectors to Leptons

(a)←→(b)

a is repulsed by b and vice versus b is repulsed by a, quite clearly there is no gravity that should be there if the Lepton model was anywhere near accurate.

   

[guest39538]

Honestly who thinks up this stuff, they could not be more polar opposite to the correct answer if they tried.

The antiparticle of the electron is called the positron; it is identical to the electron except that it carries electrical and other charges of the opposite sign. When an electron collides with a positron, both particles can be totally annihilated, producing gamma ray photons.

The positron would pass right through the electron because there would be no repulsive force from any point of each ''binary'' set.

What do we call a set that is made up of an individual element?

Propose

When a Cation collides with an anion, E=mc² and  both particles can be totally annihilated, producing n-wave photons

  inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source


A proposal that n-wave photons are perturbations in the n-field that cause the linearity of the n-field to wave.

For those who do not understand, have a friend hold one end of piece of string, you hold the other end and pull it tight, simply ''twang'' the string and watch the wave of the linearity.

[guest39538]

This might make you smile,

A simpleton walks into a bar  and ask's the bar tender a question about a singleton.

How could the contents in that glass exist  if the contents were all likewise singletons ? {0}   


Because all    a ∈ {a}

Because a set such as {{1, 2, 3}}    1=2=3

Because

In axiomatic set theory, the existence of singletons is a consequence of the axiom of pairing: for any set A, the axiom applied to A and A asserts the existence of {A, A}, which is the same as the singleton {A} (since it contains A, and no other set, as an element).

Axiomatic set theory[edit]
Elementary set theory can be studied informally and intuitively, and so can be taught in primary schools using Venn diagrams. The intuitive approach tacitly assumes that a set may be formed from the class of all objects satisfying any particular defining condition. This assumption gives rise to paradoxes, the simplest and best known of which are Russell's paradox and the Burali-Forti paradox. Axiomatic set theory was originally devised to rid set theory of such paradoxes.[5]

Many mathematical concepts can be defined precisely using only set theoretic concepts. For example, mathematical structures as diverse as graphs, manifolds, rings, and vector spaces can all be defined as sets satisfying various (axiomatic) properties. Equivalence and order relations are ubiquitous in mathematics, and the theory of mathematical relations can be described in set theory.

Set theory is also a promising foundational system for much of mathematics. Since the publication of the first volume of Principia Mathematica, it has been claimed that most or even all mathematical theorems can be derived using an aptly designed set of axioms for set theory, augmented with many definitions, using first or second order logic. For example, properties of the natural and real numbers can be derived within set theory, as each number system can be identified with a set of equivalence classes under a suitable equivalence relation whose field is some infinite set.

Set theory as a foundation for mathematical analysis, topology, abstract algebra, and discrete mathematics is likewise uncontroversial; mathematicians accept that (in principle) theorems in these areas can be derived from the relevant definitions and the axioms of set theory. Few full derivations of complex mathematical theorems from set theory have been formally verified, however, because such formal derivations are often much longer than the natural language proofs mathematicians commonly present. One verification project, Metamath, includes human-written, computer‐verified derivations of more than 12,000 theorems starting from ZFC set theory, first order logic and propositional logic.

[guest39538]

More philosophy, how could humans exist if we were all likewise ''singletons''?

Maybe this question applies Universally , a bit like how can a chicken exist without an egg, and how can the egg exist without the chicken?

How can rain exist without water?  How can ice exist without water?

How can anything exist without something else?

[alancalverd]

Please provide a link for the electrons independent existence outside of the atom?  I cannot find one.

You are looking at one right now. Or you would be if your computer had an oldfashioned CRT display. Maybe you have a valve radio, an old guitar amplifier, or a microwave cooker? Pop in to any hospital and look at their xray machines - free electrons whizzing around and crashing into things is how we generate x-rays. Or a factory with electron beam welding.

[guest39538]

Please provide a link for the electrons independent existence outside of the atom?  I cannot find one.

You are looking at one right now. Or you would be if your computer had an oldfashioned CRT display. Maybe you have a valve radio, an old guitar amplifier, or a microwave cooker? Pop in to any hospital and look at their xray machines - free electrons whizzing around and crashing into things is how we generate x-rays. Or a factory with electron beam welding.

How do I know I am not looking at anions?

How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?

[Bored chemist]

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

Have you spent nine pages telling us that  objects with the same number of positive and negative charges have no overall charge?

Was there anyone who didn't already know that?

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

The correct answer is yes.
And, in spite of what Colin2B says, there is not scientific theory which lets you get away from that, because it's aan empirically observed fact.

[Bored chemist]

How do I know I am not looking at anions?

Because the mass to charge ratio is wrong.

How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?

It's kind of meaningless to base something on not seeing the annihilation of things when there's no reason to suppose they would be annihilated.

I am not lieing either, the physics tells us what is what,

Physics tells us about free electrons in a number of circumstances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube

And, as usual, your refusal to start by learning stuff makes you look silly.

[guest39538]

How do I know I am not looking at anions?

Because the mass to charge ratio is wrong.

How do I know I am not observing free electrons annihilating?

It's kind of meaningless to base something on not seeing the annihilation of things when there's no reason to suppose they would be annihilated.

I am not lieing either, the physics tells us what is what,

Physics tells us about free electrons in a number of circumstances
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube

And, as usual, your refusal to start by learning stuff makes you look silly.

Well regardless of a few hiccups in my N-field theory, it does not change the maybe fact, that I have answered what the gravity mechanism is.

That theory is short and sweet

Gravity mechanism

S.P.Leese
Spring 2018

Abstract - This paper explains gravity mechanism

Propose - Neutral is attracted to Neutral

Citation - Coulombs law

a+b  ∈ {n} 

a is attracted to b

b is attracted to a

therefore a+b is attracted to a+b


The end....

[Kryptid]

When a Cation collides with an anion, E=mc² and  both particles can be totally annihilated, producing n-wave photons

If that was true, then table salt would explode.

[guest39538]

When a Cation collides with an anion, E=mc² and  both particles can be totally annihilated, producing n-wave photons

If that was true, then table salt would explode.

I do not think we could collide table salt at c.

[Kryptid]

I do not think we could collide table salt at c.

You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.

[guest39538]

I do not think we could collide table salt at c.

You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.

Of course mass can not travel at c, but mass can travel at 0.5c, two objects colliding at 0.5c is a ''crash'' at c.   F²

[Kryptid]

I do not think we could collide table salt at c.

You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.

Of course mass can not travel at c, but mass can travel at 0.5c, two objects colliding at 0.5c is a ''crash'' at c.   F²

I would say, "you can't add velocities linearly at relativistic speeds", but I'm sure you'd find some way to ignore it, as usual.

[guest39538]

I do not think we could collide table salt at c.

You can't collide anything with mass at c, because you can't get it up to that speed.

Of course mass can not travel at c, but mass can travel at 0.5c, two objects colliding at 0.5c is a ''crash'' at c.   F²

I would say, "you can't add velocities linearly at relativistic speeds", but I'm sure you'd find some way to ignore it, as usual.

If you can add speeds together in a car crash to have double the force, then obviously travelling faster does not change this.

Also if mass was to become energy, then the energy could travel at c.

[Kryptid]

If you can add speeds together in a car crash to have double the force, then obviously travelling faster does not change this.

Yep, just as I predicted.

[guest39538]

If you can add speeds together in a car crash to have double the force, then obviously travelling faster does not change this.

Yep, just as I predicted.

Explain why you think this simple piece of physics would alter any travelling faster?

[Kryptid]

Explain why you think this simple piece of physics would alter any travelling faster?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity#Composition_of_velocities