[talanum1 (OP)]

Because the amount of energy in an atom is far greater than the spacetime events of positive and negative attraction you postulation creates

All of spacetime copied twice could have enough energy.

In the case of truly fundamental particles, such as quarks and neutrinos, they aren't made of anything smaller (as we can best tell, experimentally).

So they are made of nothing. Why then not consider them made of spacetime events?

Something being conceivable does not make it true. In science, you need experiments or observations that allow you to potentially falsify assertions. Have you done those experiments?

I made protons and electrons with my mind - they talk to me telepathically: I know it's not imagination.

Why would it need to?
Is it sending Xmas cards?

If there is a change in matter position, spacetime needs to communicate to change its curvature far from the matter.

[Bored chemist]

I made protons and electrons with my mind - they talk to me telepathically: I know it's not imagination.

How are we meant to distinguish this from psychosis?

[talanum1 (OP)]

How are we meant to distinguish this from psychosis?

You can only if someone else does the same thing.

[Bored chemist]

Do you recognise that your posts don't make scientific sense?

[talanum1 (OP)]

Do you recognise that your posts don't make scientific sense?

It would seem not to make sense to you because you believe in point particles or strings.

[Kryptid]

So they are made of nothing. Why then not consider them made of spacetime events?

A lack of a good, scientifically-based reason to do so.

I made protons and electrons with my mind

Evidence please.

they talk to me telepathically

Evidence please. Since when can subatomic particles talk?

I know it's not imagination.

How? Wouldn't you need some kind of physical corroboration in order to know that? If so, then what is this corroboration?

[talanum1 (OP)]

Evidence please.

I have evidence but it is subjective.

Evidence please. Since when can subatomic particles talk?

You need to be telepathic to know.

How? Wouldn't you need some kind of physical corroboration in order to know that? If so, then what is this corroboration?

The happenings were outside my head.

[Bored chemist]

I have evidence but it is subjective.

So, it's not science then.
Why are you posting here on a science page?

It would seem not to make sense to you because you believe in point particles or strings.

It does not make sense to me because you have not been able to explain it.
But the point I was making is that it is not science.
The fact that it is not science is not a function of my belief in string, or anything else.
It is a function of the inability of anyone to reproduce your findings.

You need to be telepathic to know.

Then, because it is not reproducible, it's not science.
Please stop posting about it on a science page.

[Kryptid]

I have evidence but it is subjective.

Do you have scientific evidence?

You need to be telepathic to know.

So are you saying that your model is not capable of being investigated scientifically?

The happenings were outside my head.

How do you know?

[Petrochemicals]

Because the amount of energy in an atom is far greater than the spacetime events of positive and negative attraction you postulation creates

All of spacetime copied twice could have enough energy.
.

The energy in a nuclear explosion pails in comparison to the actual energy in a nuclear particle, a uranium atom contains 1000 times the energy in its particles than the fission of the atom and 10000 times the energy of the sun's hydrogen fusion. This would be noticed if fabricated from space time events.

[talanum1 (OP)]

So, it's not science then.

It's science: I can tell you how to make particles of your own (Earth does not like this).

How do you know?

I know where I end and the World begins.

So are you saying that your model is not capable of being investigated scientifically?

It can be tested by someone who is also telepathic.

This would be noticed if fabricated from space time events.

How will it be noticed?

[Bored chemist]

It can be tested by someone who is also telepathic.

So, no real people can test it.

It's science: I can tell you how to make particles of your own (Earth does not like this).

No
It might be science if you told is something which could work.

[talanum1 (OP)]

It can be tested: it predicts the fields will behave differently from that expected of a point, at very close distances from the particle.

Think for yourself: how can a point have more than one property?

[Bored chemist]

It can be tested:

Then do the experiment.

[Kryptid]

I know where I end and the World begins.

So then describe for us what it was that convinced you that you were receiving telepathic messages from outside of your own head.

It can be tested by someone who is also telepathic.

First there would have to be compelling scientific evidence that telepathy exists in the first place. People merely claiming to be telepathic is insufficient.

It can be tested: it predicts the fields will behave differently from that expected of a point, at very close distances from the particle.

In what way, specifically?

[talanum1 (OP)]

They could tell me things I didn't know.

Telepathy is scientificly proven: the proof is on the Internet.

It will be vectors along curves and it won't go to infinity as you approach zero.

I can prove they aren't points. Proof: Suppose they are points. Then it should be possible to superimpose two of them with the same spin. This contradicts the Pauli exclusion principle.

[Bored chemist]

Telepathy is scientificly proven: the proof is on the Internet.

No it isn't, and a lot of lies are on the internet.

Proof: Suppose they are points. Then it should be possible to superimpose two of them with the same spin.

Not a proof; it's a non sequitur.

They could tell me things I didn't know.

Some of the things they told you (and which you posted here) don't make sense.
So you don't actually "know" them. You just think you do.

[talanum1 (OP)]

Not a proof; it's a non sequitur.

You see, you got a strong interest in it not being true. It follows: two points can be superimposed (mathematically valid operation). It's done regularly like in lining up two Lorentz frames.

No it isn't, and a lot of lies are on the internet.

See: https://www.whiteoutpress.com/scientists-prove-mental-telepathy-real/
https://www.insidescience.org/video/telepathy-real
https://anomalien.com/scientific-evidence-of-telepathy
https://www.alittlesparkofjoy.com/telepathy
www.yogebooks.com/english/atkinson/1910telepathy.pdf

Some of the things they told you (and which you posted here) don't make sense.
So you don't actually "know" them. You just think you do.

I didn't post anything they told me. What does not make sense?

[Bored chemist]

I can prove they aren't points. Proof: Suppose they are points. Then it should be possible to superimpose two of them with the same spin.

I can put two eggs in a box, but it does not follow that I can put two elephants in that box.
There is a rule that stops me.
I can't do that because elephants are too big.

I can't put two electrons in the same place.
There are two rules that stop me.
One reason is the Pauli principle but another is the electrostatic repulsion would be infinite.

So your idea makes no sense.

You say " we could ..." but we can't- for exactly the reason you give- The Pauli principle.

See: https://www.whiteoutpress.com/scientists-prove-mental-telepathy-real/
https://www.insidescience.org/video/telepathy-real
https://anomalien.com/scientific-evidence-of-telepathy
https://www.alittlesparkofjoy.com/telepathy
www.yogebooks.com/english/atkinson/1910telepathy.pdf

As I said:

a lot of lies are on the internet.

[Bored chemist]

I didn't post anything they told me.

You said this

I made protons and electrons with my mind - they talk to me telepathically

What did they tell you?