[The Spoon]

My stance is that the aether doesn't exist at all.

why does an aether have to exist for my temperature theory to be true?

Because you said that it involved the aether.

No pope. I just call it the aether because you people are so high strung on semantics. call it what you want, you still aren't going to find anything in the universe without tempetature?

Pope? Your befuddled mind thinks I am head of the Catholic Church? No wonder you post gibberish.

[Kryptid]

My stance is that the aether doesn't exist at all.

why does an aether have to exist for my temperature theory to be true?

Because you said that it involved the aether.

No pope. I just call it the aether because you people are so high strung on semantics. call it what you want, you still aren't going to find anything in the universe without tempetature?

Words have particular definitions. If you are using a word in a way that goes against its traditional definition, you can end up causing confusion. So if what you are talking about isn't aether, then you probably shouldn't call it aether.

[paul cotter]

Kryptid, you need to wag your tail, then you will feel the aether.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

elements that have cube numbers like 27 and 64, and their neighboring elements, make up the magnetic compounds. Just a theory but the cube nucleus lines up well with other cube's? and the flow of the electric shell for each nucleus is the same otherwise when they line up they wouldn't create a larger magnet?

[Bored chemist]

elements that have cube numbers like 27 and 64, and their neighboring elements, make up the magnetic compounds.

Interesting idea, but wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heusler_compound

Also, we know that the magnetic properties are largely determined by the electrons, not the nucleus.

A numerologist would try to convince us that oxygen (with atomic number is also magnetic but it's only paramagnetic and, of course, hydrogen (atomic number 1) isn't magnetic.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Also, we know that the magnetic properties are largely determined by the electrons, not the nucleus.

I agree. The energy that makes electricity and the electric shell extends out into a magnetic field. But north and south are determined by the nucleus. I think the energy is stationary inside the shell and very hot. So the heat of electricity is a magnetic field.

The stationary heat around the nucleus I speak of creates a gravity field. It is bound to the nucleus. Electricity in the electric shell is stationary conventional transferring heat. This type of heat as said finds equilibrium with temperature and has a quality of travelling in one direction, just like a magnetic field, they are one in the same that quality.

[Bored chemist]

But north and south are determined by the nucleus.

Nope.

[Bored chemist]

The stationary heat around the nucleus I speak of creates a gravity field. It is bound to the nucleus. Electricity in the electric shell is stationary conventional transferring heat.

Word salad.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

But north and south are determined by the nucleus.

Nope.

No pope? anyhoo how is particles physics supposed to explain anything? The medium of nothing? where are you going with this stuff?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

So is a nuclei hot? any takers? obviously they are as a small amount of fusion material can produce a lot of heat? what inside the nuclei converts to heat when they bond?

Mine is that fusion causes cratering of the nuclei, putting a portion of the nucleus into orbit and releasing some of its gravity field as a a wave of heat. But I bicker with myself.

[Kryptid]

So is a nuclei hot? any takers?

No (not when it is in its ground state, anyway).

obviously they are as a small amount of fusion material can produce a lot of heat? what inside the nuclei converts to heat when they bond?

The mass defect (the difference in mass between the nuclei that fused together versus the nucleus that was produced) is expressed in the form of increased particle velocities (the resulting nuclei and subatomic particles produced by the reaction are moving quickly).

Mine is that fusion causes cratering of the nuclei, putting a portion of the nucleus into orbit and releasing some of its gravity field as a a wave of heat. But I bicker with myself.

Putting a portion of the nucleus in orbit is equivalent to putting the nucleus into an excited state. This absorbs energy instead of releasing it. Gravity also has nothing to do with it.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

The mass defect (the difference in mass between the nuclei that fused together versus the nucleus that was produced) is expressed in the form of increased particle velocities (the resulting nuclei and subatomic particles produced by the reaction are moving quickly).

Is that supposed to be empirical knowledge? It like a lot of the 'empirical' knowledge out there, backed by the insults, its a sort of offense, I wonder if someday I'll have to do something legal about that? Not to anyone here but people like that with pfft actual....you know.....power and stuff. heheh

[paul cotter]

If you are not interested in facts that the members here have kindly provided in answer to your queries, then I suggest a science forum is not for you.

[Bored chemist]

Is that supposed to be empirical knowledge?

Yes.

You seem to be ignoring teh fact that the Aether wasn't "forgotten".
It was discarded because of empirical evidence.
So, if you are so fond of empiricism, why do you keep trying to drag the corpse back in?

[alancalverd]

Is that supposed to be empirical knowledge?

To anyone who has seen a hydrogen bomb, or a star, it counts as empirical knowledge. The mass defect also produces a lot of photons, which is useful for sustaining life on this planet. We don't do a lot of fusion in the laboratory but we use the fission mass defect to generate electricity on an industrial scale. 

E = mc² isn't just a T-shirt slogan. It's the reason we exist.

[Kryptid]

The mass defect (the difference in mass between the nuclei that fused together versus the nucleus that was produced) is expressed in the form of increased particle velocities (the resulting nuclei and subatomic particles produced by the reaction are moving quickly).

Is that supposed to be empirical knowledge? It like a lot of the 'empirical' knowledge out there, backed by the insults, its a sort of offense, I wonder if someday I'll have to do something legal about that? Not to anyone here but people like that with pfft actual....you know.....power and stuff. heheh

Yes, it is empirical knowledge. It makes no sense for you to take offense at that.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Well i guess the naked genius powerless troll friends have spoken! The big CS wheel of money beats soul every time. Every GD time.

[Kryptid]

Well i guess the naked genius powerless troll friends have spoken!

What is that supposed to mean?

[Bored chemist]

Well i guess the naked genius powerless troll friends have spoken! The big CS wheel of money beats soul every time. Every GD time.

You talk about money as if we are getting paid for this.
Would you like to think that through again?

[alancalverd]

What is that supposed to mean?

Like, man, science is so uncool. Why do you think the Holy Donald Trump came down the mountain to pee on experts? Truth is all yesterday. Flowers grow on bullshit - let's beautify the world with ignorance and wild assertion.