Leaderboard

I apologize... I was going in a very wrong way, very wrong, and you all showed me that. Hope not had made you waste your time too much. I admit now that even the statement of the title "No material can have a negative charge" is totally wrong. Negative materials do exist (as the discussed balloons), negative ions do exist, the commonly considered "ground" electric potential is not any positive potential, things cannot be explained by just the difference in positive potentials, a really zero potential is achieved at normal temperatures just whenever atoms have all of their electrons and not at 0ºK as I was considering... What a wrong way! I admit. Thanks to have made me "fall to the ground". I'm working on a model for the basic atomic particles considering them as not "point like" particles as is currently considered, I know. I cannot handle the concept of "point like" having a magnetic field. For me the proper definition of magnetic field involves a current element which means a displacement of charge and so imposible to exist "within" a point. A model still under development and I'm not thinking in abandon it easily although I need to reformulate it in something now. May be I could return with some other thing in mind to discuss in the forum at some time. Hope to not bother you too much...

MSNBC legal commentator Glenn Kirschner made an interesting point on this today https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9vI23c0q5U Kirschner says that during his 30 year stint as a federal prosecutor in Washington DC, the attorneys office there used the Secret Service forensic science divison rather than the Metropolitan police department, or the FBI lab at Quantico, to handle any criticially important data recovery from seized computers or cell phones. Kirschner says they did so because the USSS forensic science service had a stellar reputation for handling probative searches of cell phones in particular. The idea that they somehow lost the critical text messages for just Jan 5th & 6th 2021 during a bungled device replacement process, and can’t now recover these from backups is beyond ridiculous. Small wonder that the head of the USSS James Murray abruptly resigned last week.

I have followed the debates about the nature of the ‘dark sector’ for many years now, and have looked at the mathematical formalisms of all the various candidate models and ideas, some of them in detail. So I’m drawing from a diverse range of sources, not just a single paper or author. If you look at the bigger picture, you’ll find that many of the alternative models may be better at explaining specific phenomena - but at the cost of failing miserably with other observational data. Furthermore, very many of these alternatives require extra fields or extra dimensions, or make ad-hoc assumptions that aren’t based on any known physics - so they try to explain one unknown by proposing other unknowns, which is kind of useless. For example, the paper you quote assumes the existence of sterile neutrinos below a certain critical mass limit in order to match observations. Other known problems with MOND are never addressed at all. On a meta level, taking into account all available observational data at this point in time, standard GR still provides the best fit. Im aware of the problems in standard cosmology of course, but I don’t think any of the currently existing alternatives provides a good enough solution. That includes MOND and its relativistic generalisations.

Recent events in Ukraine would seem to indicate Russian military is a paper Bear with no tail. I'm not sure I can get behind the idea that russia is a threat to anyone but themselves.

You chose to enter the arena of chemistry by making a ridiculous statement, without supporting evidence, that there are no -ve ions, something that contradicts one of chemistry's most basic concepts, understood by every intelligent schoolchild. I am not going to indulge you by getting into a discussion of the structure of the hydrogen atom. If you really don't know, you can perfectly easily look it up on the internet and revert with questions. But I'm afraid I simply do not believe that someone who can ask questions about the Pauli Exclusion Principle one moment can, at the next, fail to understand something as basic as this. I think you must be trolling.

Imagine how I feel, then, having devoted some time to explaining the evidence for ionic bonding to you, several times, only to have you come up now with this ridiculous turd about a hydrogen atom having a proton on one side and the electron on the other.

But the electrons don't disappear even then. They convert some of the atoms and molecules in the earth to anions, that's all. But I see, depressingly, that you are yourself an electrical engineer. I seem always to be coming across electrical engineers on these forums with crank ideas about science. My heart sinks now when I learn some poster is an electrical engineer, because I wonder what nonsense may be coming. This ballocks of yours about there being no -ve ions is a vintage example of the genre.

Thank you. Remember, if you may Define It it is Complex and if you may not Define It you are probably dyslexic.🤪

Ummmm...... wow. Totes. You are absolutely correct. Godspeed.🤣