[guest39538]

My juicy steak is fresh , my juicy steak does not break any laws of physics.

Are my questions I present to you Mr C, too hard for you to answer?

If an atom =  (1+1=2) then 0.5 of an atom = 1,

0.5 of an atom does not equate to 0.5+0.5 = 1

An electron is a whole , it is not fractions making 1.


If an electron were 0.5+0.5 = 1, then it would attract other electrons. Not the case.

I explain the electrons existence within the n-field as  F2→>←F1

[guest39538]

Do I really have to draw it all in baby language every time?



ele.jpg (28.66 kB . 731x461 - viewed 2973 times)


That would be called a containment field.

b→←b→←b

p.s Yes that will fix your Plasma problem if you can create   F(a,b)>F(a,b)

added- Understand as with Newtons third law, space pushes back.   The likewise force of the n-fields pushing back all likewise fields. Q.F.P

accept the conceptual definition of Q.F.P (quantum field physicality).   Observed with magnets etc, proof.

The invisible ''rod'' between the magnets allowing me to push the other magnet without them touching. hence Q.F.P

Consider this, I am a stone-age man giving you some tools to use, you are the blacksmith who can make those tools better.
I do not 'see' the magnets in the video, I ''see'' two dense fields emitting less dense fields, I ''see'' these less dense fields being squashed when I push the magnet.  I neither 'see'' the magnetism, I only 'see' polarity. The polarity being the common thing of all fields.

U.F.T  = polarities

T.O.E  = polarities

Q.F.P = polarities

Gravity = polarities

fields = polarities

time = polariities

everything = polarities

I know more than I thought I knew, impressed myself

[alancalverd]

Alas, drivel is drivel whether presented as meaningless equations or unlabelled diagrams.

But you clearly live in a different universe where gravity is not unipolar and any old nonsense passes as logic. Trumpton, perhaps?

[guest39538]

Alas, drivel is drivel whether presented as meaningless equations or unlabelled diagrams.

But you clearly live in a different universe where gravity is not unipolar and any old nonsense passes as logic. Trumpton, perhaps?

Gravity is a binary Alan, a+b=g   

The ground pushes back, that is the repulsion involved. There is no mythology in my notion, it is using all the physical facts without any make believe.

[guest39538]

An experiment

1) Pick up any object that is near you

2) ask yourself  the following questions

a) is the atomic negative polarity of this object attracted to all the positive atomic polarity of objects around it?

b) is the atomic positive polarity of this object attracted to all the negative atomic polarity of objects around it?

3) drop the object providing it is not breakable

4) does the ground repulse the object and push back?  of course it does

5)  Does a+b = g ?  of course it does because of both yes answers of questions a and b.

[guest39538]

added- The n-field is not dense enough to push back a N-field that is falling, only a N-field if likewise density can stop a N-field falling.

See if you can understand this:

The Earth maybe  in a state of expansion, but the earth's field emitted pushes back to create n-field pressure.

[guest39538]

I wonder if you will understand this diagram yet...


neleastic.jpg (21.52 kB . 731x461 - viewed 2976 times)


The Earths field is expanding, the earth does not pull back like it use too, the poor poor moon.

[Bored chemist]

A positron cannot destroy an electron,

As I have said before, if your view doesn't agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.

Do you also insist an electron has opposite signs to retain formation?

What do you think that means?

[guest39538]

What do you think that means?

After reading about the Lepton, I think that means that ''you'' think the electron has some sort of opposite elements that allow it's formation to exist.  Making the electron a binary singleton instead of a  singleton.  However that would be wrong.

[guest39538]

As I have said before, if your view doesn't agree with reality, it is not because reality has made a mistake.

By the laws of physics an electron v electron at high  speed should annihilate an electron because wave E=mc²/2

which would equate to wave E = mc

[guest39538]

R³  ƒ(a, b) = a + b = G 

[Bored chemist]

After reading about the Lepton, I think that means that ''you'' think the electron has some sort of opposite elements that allow it's formation to exist.  Making the electron a binary singleton instead of a  singleton.  However that would be wrong.

You have tried to explain your gibberish with more gibberish.

By the laws of physics an electron v electron at high  speed should annihilate an electron because wave E=mc²/2

which would equate to wave E = mc

Ditto

Your idea of electrons disappearing doesn't work. It can't- because of charge conservation.

[guest39538]

Your idea of electrons disappearing doesn't work. It can't- because of charge conservation.

Explain charge conservation?  I will also look it up

[guest39538]

In physics, charge conservation is the principle that electric charge can neither be created nor destroyed. The net quantity of electric charge, the amount of positive charge minus the amount of negative charge in the universe, is always conserved.

The above applies to within a n-field system.   Any dispersed n-wave energy is regathered because of the inner product attractiveness properties.

Mathematical explained R³ ƒ(a, b) = a + b = G

The laws of physics suggest that an electron cannot retain form , be a inner product, without a binding or a pressured force.

Explain how a ''free'' electron can retain form ?

[guest39538]

TRUTH TABLE.jpg (20.8 kB . 731x461 - viewed 2643 times)

[Bored chemist]

Explain how a ''free'' electron can retain form ?

I don't need to explain why your made up nonsense is wrong.

[guest39538]

Explain how a ''free'' electron can retain form ?

I don't need to explain why your made up nonsense is wrong.

You are the one claiming it is nonsense and wrong, therefore an explanation is required to justify your statement.  Saying something is wrong without explanation is subjective and not very truthful. 
Are you afraid that if you answer my questions truthfully it would re-enforce my notion?

I do not need you to re-enforce my notion, I already understand it is credible.

[guest39538]

g= (F_e-+F_+1e) + (F_e-+F_+1e) = F²=r₀

Because ((-ε)  +  (+ε ) )  + ((+ε)  +  (-ε ) )  = 0 ε and is cumulative. 

[Kryptid]

I do not need you to re-enforce my notion, I already understand it is credible.

Says the guy who once claimed to have a logical axiom proof that time dilation can't happen.

[guest39538]

I do not need you to re-enforce my notion, I already understand it is credible.

Says the guy who once claimed to have a logical axiom proof that time dilation can't happen.

Well, time dilation does not happen quite  the way science think it happens, so technically I was correct. Time is not independent of the Caesium, the  change of frequency is an internal change of the Caesium.    Yes agreed by some affect of the energy in space. Nothing to do with any space-time though.  No such thing.