The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. The N-field
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 48   Go Down

The N-field

  • 946 Replies
  • 75782 Views
  • 3 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The N-field
« Reply #640 on: 02/03/2018 11:27:46 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 11:23:00
Quote from: Thebox on 01/03/2018 22:52:25
I explain the electrostatic charge is the zpe.
No
You stated that the charge is the ZPE, but that doesn't make sense.
Energy isn't the same as charge- different units etc.

Just saying something doesn't make it true.

No, I stated the electrostatic is the ZPE, charge/polarity a property of the electrostatic .

4. That i and j  are opposite signed electrostatic charge polarity of ZPE


Should I put


4. That i and j  are ZPE's with opposite signs, in the form of electrostatic energy.


Logged
 



guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The N-field
« Reply #641 on: 02/03/2018 11:40:19 »
Quote from: Kryptid on 27/02/2018 23:49:14
Quote from: Thebox on 27/02/2018 22:56:34
I will give you an experiment, emit some electrons directed at some electrons.   

Quote
Colliding two electrons will always produce two scattered electrons, and it may sometimes produce some photons from initial and final state radiation


If they had no volume there would be nothing to collide.

Electrons are not like little rubber balls that bounce off of each other. Electrons interact with other electrons via the fields that they possess. They themselves do not need any actual volume or size in order to interact with each other in this way.
The field they possess is the electron in my notion, so yes they are little rubber balls but are only a shell.
Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The N-field
« Reply #642 on: 02/03/2018 13:46:27 »
The mechanics of gravitational force.

Author - S.P. Leese

Spring 2018

Abstract:

On the premise  that   all signed electrostatic fields are attracted to neutral signed electrostatic fields,   this paper  proposes a theory that is intended  to evidentially show a normalising that  is, ''Neutral is attracted to Neutral''.   A natural phenomenon that may explain the gravity process.
First will be shown is that  the formation of   zero point energy (ZPE) is a two part binary construction.   The ZPE  failing to retain form without the simultaneous  co-existence of an opposite sign.
 A  co-existence that  shall be established of opposite signs ,  simultaneously occupying the same geometric point of a  R³ real coordinate space,  to form a point particle with point mass.
Additionally, we shall establish plausible conceptual considerations  of the point particles emitted field.  Finally shall be conclusions , based on the provided information of the paper.


Introduction.

The importance of this paper is to answer the question,  what is the underlying mechanics of the gravitational force?   Many great minds have considered possibilities, Newton's  1687 discovery pioneering the notions on this mysterious force.   Then later in time,  Einstein's theory of  relativity explaining the force to be  a distortion of space or more precisely, space-time.   
However, although their contributions are greatly appreciated, nobody so far as answered what the underlying mechanics are,  of the gravitational force.   Thus leading me to research and question  the present information available, looking for the answer.  I will present several chapters on various things , that lead the way  to my final conclusion .


Definitions.


Before any meaningfully discussion can  continue , several definitions must be  preliminary accepted.

1.  A R³ real coordinate space shall be labelled  [a]

2.  [a] is understood to be a volume of real space

3.  Each point within [a] has a standard dimensional of zero.

4.  That i and j are ZPE's (zero point energy)

5.  That i and j are electrostatic energy of opposite  signs

5.  Let i = negative sign

6.  Let j = positive sign

7.   A  field that is measured to be neutral in charge,  shall be labelled a N-field

8.  A  point particle  that is measured to be neutral in charge , shall be labelled a N-field particle


Chapter 1  -  Before the Big Bang there was nothing, not even space.

Let us be clear in our minds what we mean by space.  Space is a vast expanse of nothing,  it has no physicality.   Space does not age or change, things change relative to space, age and position  change relative to space.  Space being the absolute reference frame of comparison, a constant 0 value that we can compare things to in measurement.  In example let us consider a train carriage in respect to the embankment, the train moves in respect to the embankment, the embankment has relative 0 velocity.  However relative to space, the embankment and the train carriage are moving through space.  Now let us consider a clock on the embankment, the embankment, the train carriage and the clock all age in accordance with the measure of their own clock.  However they have all  aged relative to the 0 change of space.  Thus leading to my first question.

Before the big bang there was nothing, could this nothing  be  space?   

It would not seem logical that no space existed, for an event to happen it would almost certainly need a space to happen in.  There is no apparent evidence that space can be created or destroyed, so maybe in the beginning there was just space.  Space could certainly be considered in being  nothing ,  a dimensional volume of emptiness.   Without light the space would seem to have no dimensions, point sources allowing us to perceive spacial distance.  Without these point sources , space would  just be visual ''blackness'', as if nothing.  The thought of 0 dimensions always leads to in one's mind, a surrounding darkness of a point .   This darkness being a limitation that is, without light.
Logged
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21418
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 487 times
    • View Profile
Re: The N-field
« Reply #643 on: 02/03/2018 13:56:09 »
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 11:27:46
No, I stated the electrostatic is the ZPE, charge/polarity a property of the electrostatic .
Did you read that through before posting it?

Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 11:40:19
The field they possess is the electron in my notion, so yes they are little rubber balls but are only a shell.
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The N-field
« Reply #644 on: 02/03/2018 14:06:04 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 11:27:46
No, I stated the electrostatic is the ZPE, charge/polarity a property of the electrostatic .
Did you read that through before posting it?

Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 11:40:19
The field they possess is the electron in my notion, so yes they are little rubber balls but are only a shell.
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
An electron has a diameter, therefore is has a volume. Therefore all points of the volume are likewise in repulsive force to each other. Outcome is an electron shell that is hollow.
Logged
 



Online Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21418
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 487 times
    • View Profile
Re: The N-field
« Reply #645 on: 02/03/2018 14:10:38 »
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04
An electron has a diameter
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The N-field
« Reply #646 on: 02/03/2018 14:11:47 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04
An electron has a diameter
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
Logged
 

Offline The Spoon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 617
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 15 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The N-field
« Reply #647 on: 02/03/2018 15:15:12 »
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:11:47
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04
An electron has a diameter
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
What about the wind?
Logged
 

Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5544
  • Activity:
    73.5%
  • Thanked: 235 times
    • View Profile
Re: The N-field
« Reply #648 on: 02/03/2018 17:33:46 »
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:11:47
If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.

The electromagnetic and weak nuclear fields of an electron have volume. So by your own reasoning, that's sufficient to explain why they can exert force on other things. The electron itself need not have any volume.

Even if electrons do have a finite size and volume, it does not follow that they are composite particles made up of smaller entities that can repel each other. One of your problems is that you think of quantum objects as if they were macroscopic objects like gas clouds. A gas cloud is made up of small, tangible particles capable of interacting with each other. They can move closer to each other or farther apart. So far, there is no evidence that electrons are made of anything smaller than themselves. So such an analogy is faulty from the get-go.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2018 17:39:21 by Kryptid »
Logged
 



guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The N-field
« Reply #649 on: 02/03/2018 20:58:04 »
Quote from: The Spoon on 02/03/2018 15:15:12
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:11:47
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04
An electron has a diameter
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
What about the wind?
You mean air travelling at  a velocity don't you?
Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The N-field
« Reply #650 on: 02/03/2018 21:02:32 »
Quote from: Kryptid on 02/03/2018 17:33:46
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:11:47
If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.

The electromagnetic and weak nuclear fields of an electron have volume. So by your own reasoning, that's sufficient to explain why they can exert force on other things. The electron itself need not have any volume.

Even if electrons do have a finite size and volume, it does not follow that they are composite particles made up of smaller entities that can repel each other. One of your problems is that you think of quantum objects as if they were macroscopic objects like gas clouds. A gas cloud is made up of small, tangible particles capable of interacting with each other. They can move closer to each other or farther apart. So far, there is no evidence that electrons are made of anything smaller than themselves. So such an analogy is faulty from the get-go.
Imagine an electron to be made up of repulsive points and it stretching from the inside out.  A bit like a balloon inflating but without the air.  The inner walls of the ''balloon'' being repulsive .  The ''skin'' of the ''balloon, stretched.

In comparison a hollow rubber ball.
Logged
 

Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5544
  • Activity:
    73.5%
  • Thanked: 235 times
    • View Profile
Re: The N-field
« Reply #651 on: 02/03/2018 22:31:33 »
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 21:02:32
Imagine an electron to be made up of repulsive points and it stretching from the inside out.  A bit like a balloon inflating but without the air.  The inner walls of the ''balloon'' being repulsive .  The ''skin'' of the ''balloon, stretched.

In comparison a hollow rubber ball.

There you go with analogies to macroscopic objects again. There are no experiments demonstrating that electrons are made up of "repulsive points" or anything smaller than themselves. There are no experiments that demonstrate individual electrons behave like rubber.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2018 22:33:44 by Kryptid »
Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The N-field
« Reply #652 on: 02/03/2018 23:05:06 »
Quote from: Kryptid on 02/03/2018 22:31:33
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 21:02:32
Imagine an electron to be made up of repulsive points and it stretching from the inside out.  A bit like a balloon inflating but without the air.  The inner walls of the ''balloon'' being repulsive .  The ''skin'' of the ''balloon, stretched.

In comparison a hollow rubber ball.

There you go with analogies to macroscopic objects again. There are no experiments demonstrating that electrons are made up of "repulsive points" or anything smaller than themselves. There are no experiments that demonstrate individual electrons behave like rubber.
You are correct in what you are saying, but there is reasons to believe that my notions are a possibility.   I did not make my statement based on nothing.
Logged
 



Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5544
  • Activity:
    73.5%
  • Thanked: 235 times
    • View Profile
Re: The N-field
« Reply #653 on: 02/03/2018 23:33:51 »
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 23:05:06
I did not make my statement based on nothing.

You make your statements based on unsupported assumptions about the properties of electrons, which makes them suspect.
Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The N-field
« Reply #654 on: 03/03/2018 08:39:56 »
Quote from: Kryptid on 02/03/2018 23:33:51
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 23:05:06
I did not make my statement based on nothing.

You make your statements based on unsupported assumptions about the properties of electrons, which makes them suspect.
The notion is not supported in the way of vigorous experiment, the notion is supported by actions and the laws of forces etc.  That may describe my model of the electron and proton, to be a physical fact.

Having an electron,  being a physical particle of one whole,  is like saying a balloon does not inflate if you inflate it.   

I also do not believe there is such a thing as a point particle having 0 dimensions, it would not exist so therefore must have a really micro volume to exist.

0 dimension in my mind is 0 existence and a 0 point property of space.

Before the BB there was nothing, so a point particle can not be 0 dimensions because that would be a prequel to the big bang.

Compare versions.


* compare.jpg (38.79 kB . 731x461 - viewed 2052 times)


Now in your version, which it must be  bigger than 0 to exist, it has no other option but to form my version.

Your version only having mass to protons, repulsing other electrons, shows that your version can not be made of opposite pole points, or it would have mass to other electrons.






Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The N-field
« Reply #655 on: 03/03/2018 09:04:37 »
My N-field particle is my atomic model of two opposite pole energies combined that forms a physical particle.


* i,j.jpg (21.95 kB . 731x461 - viewed 2050 times)


That is why the little blighters are so hard to separate.  They are merged fields and all points of the field are occupied simultaneously by opposite signs.

E = (i+j)c³   

Added -  The centre point of this sphere design would be an absolute perfect equilibrium.  A negative, positive or neutral charge in the centre of this would be absolutely stationary.


Because F1 = F2 and all the force vector , linear field lines would be isotropic.

As I have mentioned before a critical balanced system.,

added- I thought you might like to see this of my model.


That is also what time looks like.














































































Logged
 

Offline The Spoon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 617
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 15 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The N-field
« Reply #656 on: 03/03/2018 11:37:26 »
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 20:58:04
Quote from: The Spoon on 02/03/2018 15:15:12
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:11:47
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04
An electron has a diameter
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
What about the wind?
You mean air travelling at  a velocity don't you?
People know what the wind is - why do you give such a meaningless, convoluted definition? How does it actually relate to the point?
Logged
 



guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The N-field
« Reply #657 on: 03/03/2018 11:41:31 »
Quote from: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 11:37:26
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 20:58:04
Quote from: The Spoon on 02/03/2018 15:15:12
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:11:47
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04
An electron has a diameter
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
What about the wind?
You mean air travelling at  a velocity don't you?
People know what the wind is - why do you give such a meaningless, convoluted definition? How does it actually relate to the point?
You asked about the wind, the answer I gave was related to what you asked, unless you meant something else.  But if you are writing a question you did not mean to ask, I can only give the answer to what you asked.
Logged
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: The N-field
« Reply #658 on: 03/03/2018 11:43:52 »
What about the wind? 

What is your what question?


Logged
 

Offline The Spoon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 617
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 15 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: The N-field
« Reply #659 on: 03/03/2018 11:52:55 »
Quote from: Thebox on 03/03/2018 11:41:31
Quote from: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 11:37:26
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 20:58:04
Quote from: The Spoon on 02/03/2018 15:15:12
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:11:47
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04
An electron has a diameter
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

If something has a force it has a body, if something has a body it has a volume, that is the evidence.
What about the wind?
You mean air travelling at  a velocity don't you?
People know what the wind is - why do you give such a meaningless, convoluted definition? How does it actually relate to the point?
You asked about the wind, the answer I gave was related to what you asked, unless you meant something else.  But if you are writing a question you did not mean to ask, I can only give the answer to what you asked.
You didnt give an answer, just some some convoluted word salad that you think makes you sound smart. It doesnt.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 31 32 [33] 34 35 ... 48   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags: misunderstanding basic science  / pigeon chess  / delusional thinking 
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.129 seconds with 77 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.