[guest39538]

Albeit in another thread,

You like to play twister.

[Bored chemist]

It doesn't matter where you proved that you are incapable of doing science; it matters that you did so.

[guest39538]

It doesn't matter where you proved that you are incapable of doing science; it matters that you did so.

I am capable of doing science, you have no real clue of my abilities.   Do you really mean I do not have the capability to allow cognitive control and to be forced into accepting your versions because you think they are correct? 
Its called free thinking my friend , something I am entitled to do.

p.s I have forgot my details for elsewhere...

[Bored chemist]

Do you really mean I do not have the capability to allow cognitive control and to be forced into accepting your versions because you think they are correct? 

No.
I mean you can't understand that a probability of infinity is impossible and that the rest of the stuff you post is equally wrong because you don't understand evidence.

[guest39538]

I mean you can't understand that a probability of infinity is impossible

Just because you do not like the answer or understand the answer, that does not mean it is not true.  I have demonstrated why infinite, so regardless of your belief , it is factual.

I randomly place 1 red point in an infinite volume of points, 1/∞

[guest39538]

→
E_N=A+B

→
E_n = a+b

a+b<A+B

[Bored chemist]

After 19 pages of dross in this thread, you finally confirmed (elsewhere) that the N field is nothing

I have been discussing all this time with a N-field which is a neutral field  of A + B , the earths electrostatic field 

The Earth's electrostatic field doesn't exist- it's neutral.
You might as well give up on this thread now.

[Bored chemist]

I mean you can't understand that a probability of infinity is impossible

Just because you do not like the answer or understand the answer, that does not mean it is not true.  I have demonstrated why infinite, so regardless of your belief , it is factual.

I randomly place 1 red point in an infinite volume of points, 1/∞

You seem to be misunderstanding yourself.
You didn't write that P was 1/infinity (which might be reasonable for some events).
You wrote that P=infinity.
That's infinitely wrong.
Did you not notice?

[guest39538]

The Earth's electrostatic field doesn't exist- it's neutral.

A n-field , keep up will you  of course it is neutral or else it would not work.

[guest39538]

Up and down , around and around, frown.

[Bored chemist]

The Earth's electrostatic field doesn't exist- it's neutral.

A n-field , keep up will you  of course it is neutral or else it would not work.

And, as you said, it's the electrostatic field of the Earth- which does not exist.
Please try to keep up.

[guest39538]

The Earth's electrostatic field doesn't exist- it's neutral.

A n-field , keep up will you  of course it is neutral or else it would not work.

And, as you said, it's the electrostatic field of the Earth- which does not exist.
Please try to keep up.

Huh, your trying to say the Earth has no electrical field? Rubbish !

[Bored chemist]

The (idealised) Earth is a neutral conductive sphere in a vacuum.
In order for it to have a field, there would need to be some "preferred direction" - otherwise the field wouldn't "know" which way to point.
No such direction exists so no electric field exists.

[guest39538]

The (idealised) Earth is a neutral conductive sphere in a vacuum.
In order for it to have a field, there would need to be some "preferred direction" - otherwise the field wouldn't "know" which way to point.
No such direction exists so no electric field exists.

Isotropic expansion from a point to radius x is the preferred direction of the n-field emitted by the N-field.

[Bored chemist]

Isotropic expansion from a point to radius x is the preferred direction of the n-field emitted by the N-field.

Thanks for  clarifying, once again that t=you don't know what you are talking about.
"Isotropic expansion from a point to radius x is the preferred direction"
and
isotropic
ˌʌɪsə(ʊ)ˈtrɒpɪk/Submit
adjectivePHYSICS
(of an object or substance) having a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions.
So
You are saying that  a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions...  is the preferred direction.

Would you like to try again, or are you beginning to realise you are wasting time?

[guest39538]

You are saying that  a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions...  is the preferred direction.

Damn it, I have jumped dimension again, it meant equal in all directions before.

[Bored chemist]

You are saying that  a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions...  is the preferred direction.

Damn it, I have jumped dimension again, it meant equal in all directions before.

Yes.
It means equal in all directions.
Which is exactly what a field isn't.
That was my point and thanks, once again, for pointing out how little you understand.

[guest39538]

You are saying that  a physical property which has the same value when measured in different directions...  is the preferred direction.

Damn it, I have jumped dimension again, it meant equal in all directions before.

Yes.
It means equal in all directions.
Which is exactly what a field isn't.
That was my point and thanks, once again, for pointing out how little you understand.

Incorrect yet again , a field is equal in all direction unless there are forces acting on the field.  Quite clearly you did not consider a single A+B in a void. 

[Bored chemist]

The Earth has no electrostatic field.
Your repeated ramblings don't stop that.

[guest39538]

The Earth has no electrostatic field.
Your repeated ramblings don't stop that.

Whatever , sick of you trolling now, bye.