[Bored chemist]

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.

For a start, the burden of proof goes the other way.
You are making  stuff up so it falls to you to prove that it is right.


An explanation is not required when what I am doing is pointing out that your idea is inconsistent with observed fact.
I don't need to say why you are wrong; I just need to show that you are wrong.
And I have- for example, I have cited things that show that isolated electrons exist.

[Kryptid]

Well, time dilation does not happen quite  the way science think it happens, so technically I was correct.

Yes, the consensus of the scientific community is wrong because some guy whose only science experience comes from talking on message boards said so. Someone who does not have a degree in physics, who does not have a job as a scientist and who has no means to conduct tests of his hypotheses clearly knows more than actual scientists do...

[guest39538]

I have cited things that show that isolated electrons exist.

I have cited things that show why an isolated electron can exist in a n-field.  I used Plasma bottling as an example.

[guest39538]

Well, time dilation does not happen quite  the way science think it happens, so technically I was correct.

Yes, the consensus of the scientific community is wrong because some guy whose only science experience comes from talking on message boards said so. Someone who does not have a degree in physics, who does not have a job as a scientist and who has no means to conduct tests of his hypotheses clearly knows more than actual scientists do...

What I know is what ''actual scientists'' over the years have taught me. I am just simply putting methods to practise and making the most of what I learnt.
I am a product of your own thinking. My science completes quantum mechanics, I am saying science is more than right, I am just finishing the details.   How you put this is up to science, but I did not make the physics up , it is there on wiki in black and white to work out things. The physics in my notions work, such as time

ƒ:Δt {R³ k }  = 0

ƒ:Δ R³ k  =  Δr

ƒ:Δr = v

ƒ:Δt  ∝  Δ S

ƒ:ΔS ∝  Δt

The above math is exactly what science and members have told me.

[guest39538]

P.s a + b = t

[guest39538]

T.O.E =   a + b 

Without a + b , things cannot exist, not even time.

[Bored chemist]

I have cited things that show that isolated electrons exist.

I have cited things that show why an isolated electron can exist in a n-field.  I used Plasma bottling as an example.

In the real world, electrons exist outside of plasma bottles.

Why do you keep making this sh1t up?

[guest39538]

Why do you keep making this sh1t up?

You are really not very good at understanding comparisons are you?   

Spacial n-fields bottle single free electrons.

[Kryptid]

I am saying science is more than right, I am just finishing the details.

Yet you reject many scientific findings, either because you don't understand them or because they contradict your hypotheses. So what you are actually saying is, "science is right so long as it agrees with me".

[guest39538]

I am saying science is more than right, I am just finishing the details.

Yet you reject many scientific findings, either because you don't understand them or because they contradict your hypotheses. So what you are actually saying is, "science is right so long as it agrees with me".

Reject?

I have understood relativity, defined time to a precise definition keeping inline with time dilation.   I have described gravity based on present  information. 
I have strengthened science not weakened it.   

[Bored chemist]

Spacial n-fields bottle single free electrons.

That's exactly the kind of made-up sh1t I meant.

I have understood relativity, defined time to a precise definition keeping inline with time dilation.   I have described gravity based on present  information. 

Your so called "understanding" wasn't valid.

[Kryptid]

Reject?

I have understood relativity, defined time to a precise definition keeping inline with time dilation.   I have described gravity based on present  information. 
I have strengthened science not weakened it.   

You have denied the existence of many subatomic particles. You have denied that protons are composed of quarks. You have denied that positrons and electrons annihilate each other. You have denied that Rayleigh scattering is what makes the sky blue. You have denied the way that basic orbital mechanics works.

[guest39538]

You have denied the way that basic orbital mechanics works.

I have answered how the fabric of space and space-time works.  As for the other you mentioned, my theory does not ''care'' about that , because my theory is a new theory and different than present set naive theory.

[Bored chemist]

I have answered how the fabric of space and space-time works. 

You have posted word salad.

As for the other you mentioned, my theory does not ''care'' about that , because my theory is a new theory and different than present set naive theory.

The current theory works.
Yours is different.

You might want to think about that for a minute or two.

[guest39538]

Spacial n-fields bottle single free electrons.
That's exactly the kind of made-up sh1t I meant.
Quote from: Thebox on Today at 06:18:36

Made up?  You really have a poor ability to think about forces Mr C.   

Let us gain understanding and let us begin with a discussion of a singleton set  {a} 

and

all a ∈ {a} 

Now a  is all the same polarity, and {a} is the volume of a.

Now you agree this conceptual singleton, an inner product in a R³ space,  would be in a state of expansion?

Calling to the ''dock'',  Coulomb's law's.

[guest39538]

The current theory works.
Yours is different.

My theory is different, but my theory also works and shows some of your theory cannot work.  That's the problem my friend.

[guest39538]

Moving on Mr C as I know you already agree with that because you cannot disagree because this is what physical actions and laws states.

Now ask yourself Mr C , what would stop the expansion of   {a}   to   ∞<<<{a}>>>∞?

Would we not need

F₁ ∝ F₂?

Would we not need something pushing back?

Now quite clearly Mr C, an opposite pole could not push back, only a likewise pole could push back.

[Kryptid]

I have answered how the fabric of space and space-time works.  As for the other you mentioned, my theory does not ''care'' about that , because my theory is a new theory and different than present set naive theory.

It had better "care", because (as I have pointed out in other threads) there are subatomic particles which do not have a trace of electric charge yet they have mass. So any hypothesis that proposes that mass and gravity are caused by electric charge has to be wrong.

[Bored chemist]

singleton set 

Until you define that  you are just proving me right about you posting nonsense.
It has a definition in maths, but that doesn't seem to be the one you are using, because this "Now a  is all the same polarity, and {a} is the volume of a. " would be a total non sequitur in that case.

My theory is different, but my theory also works and shows some of your theory cannot work.  That's the problem my friend.

You have shown nothing of the sort.

[guest39538]

I have answered how the fabric of space and space-time works.  As for the other you mentioned, my theory does not ''care'' about that , because my theory is a new theory and different than present set naive theory.

It had better "care", because (as I have pointed out in other threads) there are subatomic particles which do not have a trace of electric charge yet they have mass. So any hypothesis that proposes that mass and gravity are caused by electric charge has to be wrong.

I am not proposing electric charge, I am proposing polarity.  Polarity is the rudiment of existence, without opposite polarities there can be no physical Universe. 

a + b  = everything

My theory is a lot bigger than I first thought, it explains everything in a general manner, the intricate detail math , admitting will be difficult.
Try answering my questions I pose , that is the only way you may understand, your answers will lead to the same conclusion in this conceptual argument.