[Kryptid]

My argument explains those two forces. So it definitely does not violate it.

It does if you say that opposite polarities always attract each other. Protons have a hypercharge of +1, so when two protons attract each other via the strong nuclear force, it is an example of two like polarities attracting each other. Things are even more complicated when the strong force between quarks is involved, as there are six polarities (color charge) instead of only two (blue, green and red for quarks and cyan, yellow and magenta for antiquarks). Quark polarities attract each other when they add up to "white", which is quite different from the way that polarity works with electromagnetism.

I am talking about polarity is the force.

Can you rephrase this? The grammar makes it difficult to understand.

Polarity in general .

That's like saying "chemical reactions in general": it's different for different instances.

[guest39538]

I am talking about polarity is the force.

Can you rephrase this? The grammar makes it difficult to understand.

Consider polarity as a point of attraction or repulsion.

[Kryptid]

Consider polarity as a point of attraction or repulsion.

Not exactly a typical definition of polarity, given that electric fields are stilled considered to have a polarity even if they are not attracting or repelling anything.

[guest39538]

Consider polarity as a point of attraction or repulsion.

Not exactly a typical definition of polarity, given that electric fields are stilled considered to have a polarity even if they are not attracting or repelling anything.

Are they really not attracting anything ? 

If an electric field 'E' is made up of elements a + b then the elements remain attractive and repulsive. 

The sky does not let harmful rays in because it is  repulsive. 

Please accept the conceptual definition of Q.F.P , quantum field physicality as observed with magnets.

[Kryptid]

Are they really not attracting anything ?

Technically you could say they are, but an isolate charge far from other charges produces such a weak force that it may as well not be considered.

If an electric field 'E' is made up of elements a + b then the elements remain attractive and repulsive.

What experiment has demonstrated that electric fields are made up two elements?

The sky does not let harmful rays in because it is  repulsive.

So you don't know how the ozone layer works either?

Please accept the conceptual definition of Q.F.P , quantum field physicality as observed with magnets.

I have no need to because solidity is sufficiently-well explained by existing physics models.

[guest39538]

What experiment has demonstrated that electric fields are made up two elements?

When you measure it to be neutral , 0 charge.

Please accept the conceptual definition of Q.F.P , quantum field physicality as observed with magnets.

I have no need to because solidity is sufficiently-well explained by existing physics models.

Existing models do not explain the ''fabric'' of space.  Einsteins space-time curvature if you like.   A body emits a field, the field also has body but not as dense as the source.  Fields push back against fields. i.e they have physical body.

[Kryptid]

When you measure it to be neutral , 0 charge.

So it's not true of all electric fields then.

Existing models do not explain the ''fabric'' of space.  Einsteins space-time curvature if you like.   A body emits a field, the field also has body but not as dense as the source.  Fields push back against fields. i.e they have physical body.

So what definition of "physical" are you using?

[guest39538]

When you measure it to be neutral , 0 charge.

So it's not true of all electric fields then.

Existing models do not explain the ''fabric'' of space.  Einsteins space-time curvature if you like.   A body emits a field, the field also has body but not as dense as the source.  Fields push back against fields. i.e they have physical body.

So what definition of "physical" are you using?

Any electrical field that is not measuring neutral is polarised as such.

I am using physical in the same sense as you, as related to the body , something that has mass.   Something that has a density.

Simply imagine two bubbles with a nucleus pushing on each other.

[guest39538]

I drew it you


g like.jpg (35.27 kB . 731x461 - viewed 2959 times)

[guest39538]

I will leave you with these questions to ask yourself about the diagram.

Would a repulse a ?

Would b repulse b ?

would a be attracted to b ?

would b be attracted to a?

[Kryptid]

I will leave you with these questions to ask yourself about the diagram.

Would a repulse a ?

Would b repulse b ?

would a be attracted to b ?

would b be attracted to a?

Without knowing what exactly I'm looking at, I can't answer the questions. What is a? What is b? What is the nucleus? What kind of field is it?

[guest39538]

I will leave you with these questions to ask yourself about the diagram.

Would a repulse a ?

Would b repulse b ?

would a be attracted to b ?

would b be attracted to a?

Without knowing what exactly I'm looking at, I can't answer the questions. What is a? What is b? What is the nucleus? What kind of field is it?

It is an atomic field of two opposite polarities a and b, the nucleus in the diagram is a planet or body.

[Kryptid]

It is an atomic field of two opposite polarities a and b, the nucleus in the diagram is a planet or body.

What is an "atomic field"? Are the polarities electric charge?

[guest39538]

It is an atomic field of two opposite polarities a and b, the nucleus in the diagram is a planet or body.

What is an "atomic field"? Are the polarities electric charge?

I suppose it may be an electrostatic field.   Although I like to think all fields are a transformation of this singular field.

[Kryptid]

I suppose it may be an electrostatic field.   Although I like to think all fields are a transformation of this singular field.

If the fields contain an even distribution of positive and negative charges, then there will be no attraction or repulsion between the two bodies.

[guest39538]

I suppose it may be an electrostatic field.   Although I like to think all fields are a transformation of this singular field.

If the fields contain an even distribution of positive and negative charges, then there will be no attraction or repulsion between the two bodies.

That is the ostensible part ''you'' are failing to see.   It is the other was around, there would be attraction and there would be repulsion when the objects meet, space not having the density to stop -ve  of the objects. There would be no net charge but that does not mean all of sudden the properties of the object stop working.   Force does not rely on having a charge, force is force.

 

Natural electric field of the Earth

Thunderheads near Borneo, Indonesia are featured in this image photographed by an Expedition 40 crew member on the International Space Station. Credit: M. Justin Wilkinson, Jacobs and Michael Trenchard, Barrios Technology at NASA-JSC.
The natural electric field of the Earth refers to the planet Earth having a natural direct current (DC) electric field or potential gradient from the ground upwards to the ionosphere. The static fair-weather electric field in the atmosphere is ~150 volts per meter (V/m) near the Earth's surface, but it drops exponentially with height to under 1 V/m at 30 km altitude, as the conductivity of the atmosphere increases.

Slightly polarised in the denser regions nearer the mass object.

added- second thought , the measure is the air I think.   The air being denser and being slightly polarised.

[guest39538]

If anyone is wondering, we could never produce a spaceship that just went into space by some sort of hover, but we may be able to make hover cars for the ground.

[Kryptid]

That is the ostensible part ''you'' are failing to see.   It is the other was around, there would be attraction and there would be repulsion when the objects meet, space not having the density to stop -ve  of the objects. There would be no net charge but that does not mean all of sudden the properties of the object stop working.   Force does not rely on having a charge, force is force.

When forces apply in equal and opposite directions, they cancel out. If you tie a helium balloon with a lifting power of 1 pound to a 1 pound weight, the resulting configuration has no net weight and so neither moves towards or away from the Earth. The wind (or your hands) could move it around freely in any direction.

Natural electric field of the Earth

Thunderheads near Borneo, Indonesia are featured in this image photographed by an Expedition 40 crew member on the International Space Station. Credit: M. Justin Wilkinson, Jacobs and Michael Trenchard, Barrios Technology at NASA-JSC.
The natural electric field of the Earth refers to the planet Earth having a natural direct current (DC) electric field or potential gradient from the ground upwards to the ionosphere. The static fair-weather electric field in the atmosphere is ~150 volts per meter (V/m) near the Earth's surface, but it drops exponentially with height to under 1 V/m at 30 km altitude, as the conductivity of the atmosphere increases.

Slightly polarised in the denser regions nearer the mass object.

I don't see in that quote where it says the Earth's electric field is polarized in particular directions.

[guest39538]

When forces apply in equal and opposite directions, they cancel out.

I should hope so or my N-field particle would have big problems retaining form. 

However if you understand that notion fully, it is not difficult to understand me. 

The force only cancels out when the objects are touching.   Free space does not have the density or force to stop a dense mass object ''falling''.
 
It is easier if I explain to you with a set of pan scales. However these pan scales are my special scales that I have yet to make to prove my theory.


force scales..jpg (15.13 kB . 731x461 - viewed 2903 times)

Now the only reason the radius remains is because of the rod.

[guest39538]

Quite clearly of we remove the rod , the planes will join.


force scales.1.jpg (15.89 kB . 731x461 - viewed 2874 times)