0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 03/03/2018 11:41:31Quote from: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 11:37:26Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 20:58:04Quote from: The Spoon on 02/03/2018 15:15:12Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:11:47Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04An electron has a diameterQuote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09Still 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.
Quote from: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 11:37:26Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 20:58:04Quote from: The Spoon on 02/03/2018 15:15:12Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:11:47Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04An electron has a diameterQuote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09Still 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 20:58:04Quote from: The Spoon on 02/03/2018 15:15:12Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:11:47Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04An electron has a diameterQuote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09Still 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?
Quote from: The Spoon on 02/03/2018 15:15:12Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:11:47Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04An electron has a diameterQuote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09Still 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?
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:11:47Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04An electron has a diameterQuote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09Still 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?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04An electron has a diameterQuote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09Still 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04An electron has a diameterQuote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
An electron has a diameter
Still not troubling yourself to worry about actual evidence or facts then?
Quote from: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 11:52:55Quote from: Thebox on 03/03/2018 11:41:31Quote from: The Spoon on 03/03/2018 11:37:26Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 20:58:04Quote from: The Spoon on 02/03/2018 15:15:12Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:11:47Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 14:10:38Quote from: Thebox on 02/03/2018 14:06:04An electron has a diameterQuote from: Bored chemist on 02/03/2018 13:56:09Still 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. I gave an answer for the vague question you give, you said ''what about the wind? '' I was talking about physicality so assumed you meant something to do with the winds physical present, hence my answer about air. If you didn't mean that, what were you asking?
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.
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. [attachment=0,msg535140]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.
Having an electron, being a physical particle of one whole, is like saying a balloon does not inflate if you inflate it.What is "a physical particle of one whole"?
Before the BB there was nothingHow do you know?
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.This is nearly incomprehensible. What is "mass to protons" or "mass to other electrons" supposed to mean? Mass is mass.
One that is adjoined
I define nothing as space. So before the big bang there was space.
sorry, just replace the word mass with gravity
I define nothing as space. So before the big bang there was space.Why not use the right definition in order to reduce confusion?
et 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,
Quote from: Thebox on 04/03/2018 12:51:35et 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,Space changes.It becomes curved if you put mass in it.Other stuff you have posted is equally obviously wrong.
Spacial fields have special mass.
Quote from: Thebox on 27/02/2018 22:51:23If the electron has a volumeWe've already been through this: what experiment has demonstrated that electrons are spheres or have volume? I'm concerned that you might be working yourself into a circular argument.
If the electron has a volume
If electrons independently exist of the atom, then that demonstrates the electrons are spherical and have a volume. The reason for this is the objective physics I have demonstrated. It is not a belief of mine, the physics is suggestive to the very possibility of this .
I do not think objectively that a point particle could exist, a point space provable but not a point particle.
All neutral atoms are attracted to neutral atoms, all cations are attracted to neutral atoms, all anions are attracted to neutral atoms, like it or not this does explain gravity mechanism and I am right .
The strong nuclear force is the entanglement of n-fields, the emitted field of the atom (N-field particle).
You can't declare that until a confirmatory experiment demonstrates it.
What is an entanglement of n-fields?
Quote from: Kryptid on 18/03/2018 14:17:23You can't declare that until a confirmatory experiment demonstrates it. Drop any object, confirmed, Rub a balloon on your hair and stick it to a wall, confirmed. added- The balloon falls to the ground when neutral but once charged sticks to the wall. Proof.
Quote from: Thebox on 18/03/2018 14:21:40Quote from: Kryptid on 18/03/2018 14:17:23You can't declare that until a confirmatory experiment demonstrates it. Drop any object, confirmed, Rub a balloon on your hair and stick it to a wall, confirmed. added- The balloon falls to the ground when neutral but once charged sticks to the wall. Proof. That does not demonstrate that the force which pulls the balloon towards the Earth is the same as the one makes it stick to the wall. So no, a confirmatory experiment for your model has not yet been performed.