[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

I will give you an experiment, emit some electrons directed at some electrons.   

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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

Did you read that through before posting it?

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?

[guest39538]

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

Did you read that through before posting it?

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.

[Bored chemist]

An electron has a diameter

Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?

[guest39538]

An electron has a diameter

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.

[The Spoon]

An electron has a diameter

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[guest39538]

An electron has a diameter

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?

[guest39538]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[guest39538]

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 1660 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.

[guest39538]

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 1658 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.

[The Spoon]

An electron has a diameter

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?

[guest39538]

An electron has a diameter

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.

[guest39538]

What about the wind? 

What is your what question?

[The Spoon]

An electron has a diameter

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.