[Bored chemist]

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?

No
I am saying that, if you don't explain it then it will make sense to nobody.
And that will mean it is nonsense.

[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?

No
I am saying that, if you don't explain it then it will make sense to nobody.
And that will mean it is nonsense.

I have explained in several different ways already.  OK, forget everything I have mentioned so far,

Let us look at the Jack in a box, a spring compressed by the lid of the box.

Do you agree that for the Jack to remain in the box,   F ∝ F of the lid?

[Bored chemist]

What do you mean by

 F ∝ F of the lid?

[guest39538]

What do you mean by

F ∝ F of the lid?

I mean what it says, obviously F is force  and obviously ∝ is proportional to. The force  pushing down, has to be at least proportional  to the force pushing up to keep the Jack in the box.

[guest39538]

Interesting though from this discussion I may have a basic concept for a some sort of piston that works on light energy .

[Bored chemist]

What do you mean by

F ∝ F of the lid?

I mean what it says, obviously F is force  and obviously ∝ is proportional to. The force  pushing down, has to be at least proportional  to the force pushing up to keep the Jack in the box.

It is traditional to avoid confusion by using different  letters for different things so
F is proportional to F
is a bit pointless.

[guest39538]

What do you mean by

F ∝ F of the lid?

I mean what it says, obviously F is force  and obviously ∝ is proportional to. The force  pushing down, has to be at least proportional  to the force pushing up to keep the Jack in the box.

It is traditional to avoid confusion by using different  letters for different things so
F is proportional to F
is a bit pointless.

Ok well now you know it means force.  It is hardly rocket science to put F1 and F2

I thought I would share this with you as well as its cool.


piston.jpg (39.03 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3391 times)

[jeffreyH]

In your post title does the N stand for non-existent? You are such a stubborn individual. If you dropped the attitude you might get interested in learning. I know you are capable but it's so much more fun baiting other members. Science can also be fun.

[guest39538]

In your post title does the N stand for non-existent? You are such a stubborn individual. If you dropped the attitude you might get interested in learning. I know you are capable but it's so much more fun baiting other members. Science can also be fun.

The N stands for neutral Jeffrey, I am not winding up or baiting anybody.   I do have fun as well , but if nobody is answering the questions then the questions remain to be asked. 
If the answers lead to a conclusion , is that not the conclusion based on the answers?

[guest39538]

I ask you Jeffrey the same question

If a is a single element that occupies a volume of space  {a}  with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise in polarity, can {a} retain form?

[guest39538]

If a is a single element that occupies a volume of space  {a}  with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise in polarity, can {a} retain form?

1)If a is a single element that occupies a volume of space  {a}  with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise in polarity, can {a} retain form?

2)If b is a single element that occupies a volume of space  {a}  with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise in polarity, can {a} retain form?

3)If a and b are individual single elements that occupies a volume of space  {a}  with every point of the element volume {a} being likewise and opposite in polarity, can {a} retain form?

Propose

1) no
2) no
3) yes

propose force vectors

1) a←→a
2) b←→b
3) a→←b


Propose vector

1) +v
2) +v
3)  -v


4) If the combined elements of a + b occupy a volume of space {a}  , is {a} attracted to other {a}   ?

propose
4) yes

Propose force vector

4)a,b→←a,b

Propose vector

4)-v

[Bored chemist]

It is hardly rocket science to put F1 and F2

It's simple  and obvious.
So the fact that you didn't do it says a lot about you.

Anyway, are you saying (as Newton already did) the the box lid presses back on the Jack?
If so, why call it a proportionality?

[guest39538]

It is hardly rocket science to put F1 and F2

It's simple  and obvious.
So the fact that you didn't do it says a lot about you.

Anyway, are you saying (as Newton already did) the the box lid presses back on the Jack?
If so, why call it a proportionality?

Because the force of containment has to be greater than or proportional to the force of the jack. Yes Newtons laws, the lid pushes back (ignoring it is a mechanism that holds the lid of course).


So ok you got that so far, now in imagination I want you to replace the Jack with electrons.     And make the box out of electrons. 

Are you ok with that in imagination?

[Bored chemist]

What's holding everything together?

[guest39538]

What's holding everything together?

Great , I predicted your next question, now you can add the imaginary proton wall to the imaginary electron wall of the box ,  to hold the box together.


a + b = box

a without b or b without a does not equal anything, it falls apart.

[Bored chemist]

now you can add the imaginary proton wall

What's holding that together?

[guest39538]

now you can add the imaginary proton wall

What's holding that together?

The electron wall

[guest39538]

a sustains b's form and b sustains a's form.

[Kryptid]

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

Not when it comes to gravity or the strong nuclear force. If those two forces violate your argument, then obviously you are not talking about polarity in general. Rather, you are talking about a specific form of polarity: that of electromagnetism.

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.

That depends on what form of polarity you are talking about. Electromagnetic, I presume?

The electron wall

So the wall is made of hydrogen then? That's what you get when you combine electrons and protons.

[guest39538]

Not when it comes to gravity or the strong nuclear force. If those two forces violate your argument, then obviously you are not talking about polarity in general. Rather, you are talking about a specific form of polarity: that of electromagnetism.

My argument explains those two forces. So it definitely does not violate it. 
I am talking about polarity is the force.   Polarity in general .