[guest39538]

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.


Our singleton has 1 element which has a volume,  all points of this volume are likewise in polarity.

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.

Dude you have a big problem with cold reading everything.

In mathematics, a singleton, also known as a unit set, is a set with exactly one element. For example, the set {0} is a singleton. The term is also used for a 1-tuple (a sequence with one member).

[Kryptid]

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.

If you're not talking about the polarity of electric charge or the polarity of magnetic poles, then what kind of polarity are you talking about?

[guest39538]

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.

If you're not talking about the polarity of electric charge or the polarity of magnetic poles, then what kind of polarity are you talking about?

I am talking about the unification of field theory, the common factor being polarity, we only need to look at a and b.


For the purpose of discussion you can imagine an electron if you like.   It works for explanation purposes.

Changing it to suit

All e- ∈  {a}

[Bored chemist]

Dude you have a big problem with cold reading everything.

In mathematics, a singleton, also known as a unit set, is a set with exactly one element. For example, the set {0} is a singleton. The term is also used for a 1-tuple (a sequence with one member).

know about singleton sets.
However they have nothing to do with the rest of your post. They are an  abstract mathematical entity with no physical properties.
So your post made no sense.


Would you like to try again?

[Bored chemist]

the common factor being polarity,

Polarity of what?

[guest39538]

the common factor being polarity,

Polarity of what?

The polarity of whatever, magnetic polarity, charge polarity, field polarity, polarity means the same thing in any instant.

[Kryptid]

The polarity of whatever, magnetic polarity, charge polarity, field polarity, polarity means the same thing in any instant.

No it doesn't. The polarity of an electric field is not the same as the polarity of a magnetic field. They behave differently.

[guest39538]

Dude you have a big problem with cold reading everything.

In mathematics, a singleton, also known as a unit set, is a set with exactly one element. For example, the set {0} is a singleton. The term is also used for a 1-tuple (a sequence with one member).

know about singleton sets.
However they have nothing to do with the rest of your post. They are an  abstract mathematical entity with no physical properties.
So your post made no sense.


Would you like to try again?

No I do not need to explain again, it is obvious what I am saying and you are just being really awkward.

So to adjust for you


All e-  ∈  {R³} 

Can you work with that?

To contain the expansion

F₁ ∝  F₁ being likewise in polarity.

[guest39538]

The polarity of whatever, magnetic polarity, charge polarity, field polarity, polarity means the same thing in any instant.

No it doesn't. The polarity of an electric field is not the same as the polarity of a magnetic field. They behave differently.

Likewise polarities repulse , opposite polarities attract, they do not work differently although they may have different characteristics.

[Kryptid]

Likewise polarities repulse , opposite polarities attract, they do not work differently although they may have different characteristics.

That isn't true of gravity or the strong nuclear force.

[guest39538]

Likewise polarities repulse , opposite polarities attract, they do not work differently although they may have different characteristics.

That isn't true of gravity or the strong nuclear force.

But yes it is, if you answer the questions, you might realise why it is true.   

ƒ:g(F) = {a+b} + {a+b}   

Because all the statements are true in a truth table.

I understand the strong nuclear force,  it is a bit like a Chinese finger puzzle.

[Kryptid]

But yes it is, if you answer the questions, you might realise why it is true.   

ƒ:g(F) = {a+b} + {a+b}   

Because all the statements are true in a truth table.

I understand the strong nuclear force,  it is a bit like a Chinese finger puzzle.

I don't need your tables or whatever to know that like attracts like for gravity and that like attracts like for the strong nuclear force at moderate ranges and like repels like at closer range. If your reasoning is at odds with observed experimental data, then the error is in your reasoning.

[Bored chemist]

it is obvious what I am saying

No.
You say things like this

The polarity of whatever, magnetic polarity, charge polarity, field polarity, polarity means the same thing in any instant.

which is wrong.
So it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.

I understand the strong nuclear force,  it is a bit like a Chinese finger puzzle.

LOL

[guest39538]

But yes it is, if you answer the questions, you might realise why it is true.   

ƒ:g(F) = {a+b} + {a+b}   

Because all the statements are true in a truth table.

I understand the strong nuclear force,  it is a bit like a Chinese finger puzzle.

I don't need your tables or whatever to know that like attracts like for gravity and that like attracts like for the strong nuclear force at moderate ranges and like repels like at closer range. If your reasoning is at odds with observed experimental data, then the error is in your reasoning.

My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.

Is all a attracted to a,b

Is all b attracted to a,b

yes  and yes ,  True and true

Is all a,b attracted to a,b

yes , true.

[Bored chemist]

My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.

Is all a attracted to a,b

Is all b attracted to a,b

yes  and yes ,  True and true

Is all a,b attracted to a,b

yes , true.

That's neither reasoning, nor data

[guest39538]

So it isn't clear what you are saying unless you accept that you are talking nonsense.

So you don't understand but declare it nonsense?

[guest39538]

My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.

Is all a attracted to a,b

Is all b attracted to a,b

yes  and yes ,  True and true

Is all a,b attracted to a,b

yes , true.

That's neither reasoning, nor data

Are you denying Coulomb's laws?

Are you denying opposite poles attract regardless of the ''material''?

[Kryptid]

My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.

Is all a attracted to a,b

Is all b attracted to a,b

yes  and yes ,  True and true

Is all a,b attracted to a,b

yes , true.

That's neither reasoning, nor data

Are you denying Coulomb's laws?

Coulomb's law is for the electromagnetic force. I'm talking about gravity and the strong nuclear force.

[guest39538]

My reasoning is confirmed by experimental data.

Is all a attracted to a,b

Is all b attracted to a,b

yes  and yes ,  True and true

Is all a,b attracted to a,b

yes , true.

That's neither reasoning, nor data

Are you denying Coulomb's laws?

Coulomb's law is for the electromagnetic force. I'm talking about gravity and the strong nuclear force.

I know coulomb's law is for electromagnetic force , but it is the best one for describing polarity interaction. 

Why not answer the questions instead of being objective without answering the questions?

Pick up any object that is by you please.

Is the atomic negative polarity of that object attracted to the atomic positive polarity of the ground and near by objects.

A simple yes or no answer is needed.

[guest39538]

You know the answer is yes because both negative polarity and positive polarity is individually attracted to neutral

so therefore

a is attracted to a,b

b is attracted to a,b

and conclusion

a,b is attracted to a,b


added-

a can merge with b

b can merge with a

a cannot merge with a

b cannot merge with b

a,b has physicality relative to other a,b