[Bored chemist]

However, I think I have just explained it very well with my short explanation?

Well, you are wrong.

[guest39538]

However, I think I have just explained it very well with my short explanation?

Well, you are wrong.

Dear Sir, I am still awaiting your explanation of your disapproval.   You have not explained your premise for argument of why my logical reasoning and explained facts fail .   You have neither shown any inconsistencies with my findings, compared to present information. 

[Bored chemist]

Well actually the stuff inside of an electron is space, the shell is likewise to itself.

Ignoring the fact that " the shell is likewise to itself."is incomprehensible, there's another problem.
Eelctrons don't have shells. They are points as far as any measurement is concerned.

[Bored chemist]

It is an atomic field of two opposite polarities a and b

You have yet to explain what an "atomic field" is, never mind explain what evidence there is for it.
And, much the same is true of your use of teh word polarity.

[Bored chemist]

Existing because they are in a n-field.

You have provided no evidence for the existence of this field.
Nor have you explained what it actually is, or does.

[Bored chemist]

the common factor being polarity, we only need to look at a and b.

Again, you have not explained what you mean by "polarity".
Your use of it rules out the conventional meanings.

[guest39538]

Well actually the stuff inside of an electron is space, the shell is likewise to itself.

Ignoring the fact that " the shell is likewise to itself."is incomprehensible, there's another problem.
Eelctrons don't have shells. They are points as far as any measurement is concerned.

If something has dimensions, it can be point like but cannot be a point.   An electron is a point like particle that the physics suggests , with a hollow core.

[Bored chemist]

All e-  ∈  {R³} 

Does not make sense.
Electrons are a member of the set of subatomic particles, or the set of words derived from Greek or the set of very small things.
But they are not an element of of R3

[guest39538]

the common factor being polarity, we only need to look at a and b.

Again, you have not explained what you mean by "polarity".
Your use of it rules out the conventional meanings.

A point like attraction or repulsion.

[Bored chemist]

If something has dimensions, it can be point like but cannot be a point.   An electron is a point like particle that the physics suggests , with a hollow core

No proof exists that it has dimensions- that is the point.
So there's no evidence to suggest a shell with a hollow core.
You made that  up.

[guest39538]

All e-  ∈  {R³} 

Does not make sense.
Electrons are a member of the set of subatomic particles, or the set of words derived from Greek or the set of very small things.
But they are not an element of of R3

They occupy R³ so are an element of R³  , R³ is our volume.

[Kryptid]

If something has dimensions, it can be point like but cannot be a point.   An electron is a point like particle that the physics suggests , with a hollow core.

What experiment showed the electron to have a hollow core?

[Bored chemist]

the common factor being polarity, we only need to look at a and b.

Again, you have not explained what you mean by "polarity".
Your use of it rules out the conventional meanings.

A point like attraction or repulsion.

If you go through your posts and replace "polarity" by " "A point like attraction or repulsion. "
They still don't mean anything.
Apart from anything else, the phrase itself is meaningless.
An a traction has a direction a point does not.
So an attraction can not be point like.


I'm not finding any difficulty in backing up my claim that you have been posting nonsense.
How are you doing with backing up your claim that it is very well explained?

[Bored chemist]

They occupy R³ so are an element of R³  , R³ is our volume.

No the things that are members of R3 are essentially locations rather than physical things.
I may be in Birmingham, but I am not Birmingham.

[guest39538]

If something has dimensions, it can be point like but cannot be a point.   An electron is a point like particle that the physics suggests , with a hollow core

No proof exists that it has dimensions- that is the point.
So there's no evidence to suggest a shell with a hollow core.
You made that  up.

Dear Sir , I have not made anything up.  In a R³ space that had a volume element, an inner product that was constructed of likewise electrostatic points, all the points would expand to leave a hollow void in the core.

[Bored chemist]

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

There is no circle or curve in the diagram to have a radius.

[guest39538]

They occupy R³ so are an element of R³  , R³ is our volume.

No the things that are members of R3 are essentially locations rather than physical things.
I may be in Birmingham, but I am not Birmingham.

You are not far from me, I live M6 North from you, Stoke. 


Do you agree there is physical things in a R³ space?   

[guest39538]

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

There is no circle or curve in the diagram to have a radius.

You are correct, I should of said distance or length.

[Bored chemist]

likewise electrostatic points

Again- gibberish.
What do you actually mean by this?

[Kryptid]

In a R³ space that had a volume element, an inner product that was constructed of likewise electrostatic points, all the points would expand to leave a hollow void in the core.

What experiment demonstrated that electrons have volume?