Zodiac Posted May 7, 2020 Author Posted May 7, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, taeto said: I think the point the physicists are making is that the electron on its own is not unstable. it does not decay. Within an already created , established system , maybe so . However in a void it is an impossibility and on the lines of Dirac thinking , a single electron or proton in a void would self annihilate by the extreme stress caused by the absolute force of gravitational transition F(G)=<E It would be a natural requirement for the energy to be divided by the void . All R^n spatial points naturally requiring to reach an equilibrium of energy level . To retain magnitude both the electron and proton must be present a^3+b^3=V to retain form and stability . Edited May 7, 2020 by Zodiac
taeto Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, Zodiac said: Within an already created , established system , maybe so . Then the system that you are talking about, in which an electron spontaneously disintegrates, might be neither created nor established. And that is the only reason why we never see it happen, an electron going off like a firecracker?
Phi for All Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 48 minutes ago, Zodiac said: Actually the electron strong force (force 1) converges with the proton strong force (force 2) to produce a weaker emitted force (force 3) ! F1+F2=F3 In science force is push and pull , gravity is both push and pull ! The field space interior of an atom also playing a role . Returning to the earlier post , I mentioned E/R^n and particles self annihilation , the reason a virtual particle self annihilates is because it is has no bond to retain form without a counterpart . A single electron in a void cannot exist , it would be torn apart by the mechanical stress of F(G)=<E ! Moderator Note Zodiac, it's pretty clear you've based much of your concept on misinformation. There's also a great deal of basic science you're ignoring as well. You should be asking questions instead of trying to claim mainstream explanations are wrong. You've made up a LOT, so your ideas make perfect sense, but only to you. You can't explain them to anyone, despite how clear they are in your head, because they aren't well grounded in science. For this thread to stay open, you're going to need to step up the rigor and support your ideas with evidence, accuracy, and reasoned thinking.
Strange Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 50 minutes ago, Zodiac said: Are you really suggesting the present atomic model isn't electrons , protons and neutrons ? No, why would you think that? Oh yes, because you don't know what you are talking about. 50 minutes ago, Zodiac said: A single electron cannot exist in a void , it is impossible physics , there is no mechanical bond of the electron to retain stability And yet they do. Electrons are stable. There is nothing else for them to decay into. As you know approximately zero about physics, you are not really in a position to say it is impossible.
Zodiac Posted May 7, 2020 Author Posted May 7, 2020 (edited) 28 minutes ago, taeto said: Then the system that you are talking about, in which an electron spontaneously disintegrates, might be neither created nor established. And that is the only reason why we never see it happen, an electron going off like a firecracker? More or less yes ! A system can only develop if an electron and proton was to manifest simultaneously at any given point of a void . This is the only possible way some thing can form to have stability in a void . Then rather than self annihilating , a stable volume is formed and expands . a/R^n=0/t b/R^n=0/t delta 0 = a+b/t = 1/t 1/t = a^3+b^3+kE/t kE=(a^3+b^3)(hf)/t E=(a^3+b^3)+kE/(R^n/t) That is the physics ! 27 minutes ago, Phi for All said: ! Moderator Note Zodiac, it's pretty clear you've based much of your concept on misinformation. There's also a great deal of basic science you're ignoring as well. You should be asking questions instead of trying to claim mainstream explanations are wrong. You've made up a LOT, so your ideas make perfect sense, but only to you. You can't explain them to anyone, despite how clear they are in your head, because they aren't well grounded in science. For this thread to stay open, you're going to need to step up the rigor and support your ideas with evidence, accuracy, and reasoned thinking. I've added math and for support I add the Cavendish torsion ball experiment F(G)=<E , different mass balls . I also added earlier fire always points up towards less energy space , the stratosphere is cold hence the force is shown F=<E . Additionally the earth magnetic field is curved towards the poles , F=<E . the curve is what makes the density . To add : We can use internal energy of a system u and u/R^n=V/t 18 minutes ago, Strange said: No, why would you think that? Oh yes, because you don't know what you are talking about. And yet they do. Electrons are stable. There is nothing else for them to decay into. As you know approximately zero about physics, you are not really in a position to say it is impossible. Electrons are stable within an enphalpic system that is a^3+b^3=V , a singularity . Edited May 7, 2020 by Zodiac -1
Strange Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 30 minutes ago, Zodiac said: Electrons are stable within an enphalpic system that is a^3+b^3=V , a singularity . This, like everything else you have posted, is complete and utter meaningless drivel.
Zodiac Posted May 7, 2020 Author Posted May 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Strange said: This, like everything else you have posted, is complete and utter meaningless drivel. Do you always say things you can't personally understand is meaningless drivel ? Consider a HIgg's field , a^3+b^3=V/R^n The field has the mechanics for free electrons to retain form but they will degrade over time to energy loss . The visual universe is a singularity of a^3+b^3=1/t that exists within R^n/t Within, the physics are slightly different to the out !
Strange Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Zodiac said: Do you always say things you can't personally understand is meaningless drivel No, but I can tell when someone is writing words they think they understand (accompanied by random mathematical notation).
taeto Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 (edited) Zodiac has gone full circle. Edited May 7, 2020 by taeto 1
swansont Posted May 7, 2020 Posted May 7, 2020 9 hours ago, Zodiac said: It is equally and proportional attracted to behind it so the body in motion will continue its motion unless acted upon . There is no gravitational drag and slowing down of the body in motion because of the equality of attraction . So there’s no net effect? Then why mention it? 9 hours ago, Zodiac said: The Sun occupies an equal and proportional underlying volume of empty space . Exactly - the effect of empty space is removed, because the space isn’t empty. But you haven’t accounted for this. 9 hours ago, Zodiac said: When the Sun eventually dies , decays to nothing , the volume of empty space will still be there . (E/R^n)/t Energy divided by real coordinate space over time is how I describe gravitational transition ! How do you measure the energy? What is the energy of the sun? 5 hours ago, Zodiac said: Electrons are stable within an enphalpic system that is a^3+b^3=V , a singularity . What is an enphalpic system? Does this exist anywhere outside your imagination? (Google has a grand total of 5 matches)
Zodiac Posted May 7, 2020 Author Posted May 7, 2020 1 hour ago, swansont said: So there’s no net effect? Then why mention it? Exactly - the effect of empty space is removed, because the space isn’t empty. But you haven’t accounted for this. How do you measure the energy? What is the energy of the sun? What is an enphalpic system? Does this exist anywhere outside your imagination? (Google has a grand total of 5 matches) The net effect is momentum and additionally the visual universe expansion of the singularity we are within . Space isn't empty within a singularity , it is empty outside a singularity ! Enthalpy is thermodynamics , pressure etc . An enthalpic system has retaining properties etc . Field properties of the singularity are simple a^3+b^3=1/t and bodies within the field are also a^3+b^3=1/t i.e volumes The natural physics of the universe is only functional if a^3+b^3 = a^3+b^3 What this means is that bodies have to be equal and likewise in neutron polarity to the singularity spatial field . If this were not so then the permeability of the field would oppose motion . Thanks for taking the time to reply and read . I just love physics ! 🤩 -1
MigL Posted May 8, 2020 Posted May 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Zodiac said: Space isn't empty within a singularity , it is empty outside a singularity ! Umm, a singularity is non-sensical, it is the point where mathematical models diverge to infinities. And they have no dimensions, making 'within a singularity' even more non-sensical. People would take you more seriously, if you knew the difference between a singularity and a horizon. ( not that it makes a difference to the rest of the word salad ) 1 hour ago, Zodiac said: I just love physics ! 🤩 You should learn some ! 2
swansont Posted May 8, 2020 Posted May 8, 2020 10 hours ago, Zodiac said: The net effect is momentum and additionally the visual universe expansion of the singularity we are within . How is there a net effect of the effect is isotropic? 10 hours ago, Zodiac said: Space isn't empty within a singularity , it is empty outside a singularity ! Meaningless 10 hours ago, Zodiac said: Enthalpy is thermodynamics , pressure etc . An enthalpic system has retaining properties etc . Ah, enthalpy. Not enphalpy. How does an electron have enthalpy? 10 hours ago, Zodiac said: Field properties of the singularity are simple a^3+b^3=1/t and bodies within the field are also a^3+b^3=1/t i.e volumes That equation has no meaning 10 hours ago, Zodiac said: The natural physics of the universe is only functional if a^3+b^3 = a^3+b^3 That's a tautology, so we're good. 10 hours ago, Zodiac said: What this means is that bodies have to be equal and likewise in neutron polarity to the singularity spatial field . If this were not so then the permeability of the field would oppose motion . Word salad. 10 hours ago, Zodiac said: I just love physics ! 🤩 You should try discussing it here sometime. How about answering my question on the energy of the sun?
Zodiac Posted May 8, 2020 Author Posted May 8, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, swansont said: How is there a net effect of the effect is isotropic? Meaningless Ah, enthalpy. Not enphalpy. How does an electron have enthalpy? That equation has no meaning That's a tautology, so we're good. Word salad. You should try discussing it here sometime. How about answering my question on the energy of the sun? How about you learn how to create math as inputting values to existing formulas isn't math! If (a) = -0.5 and (b) = 0.5 then a+b=0 and a^3+b^3 still equals 0 . And if you mean the suns density question , the answer is var (p) where p is density . cm^3 on the Sun are dynamic in energy levels dependent to the kE going on ! Friction between particles creating heat energy etc. Tensor x = <E Tensor y = <E Tensor z = <E Not difficult too understand ! We could use +x or -x if you'd like . +v(x)=tensor <E etc... P.s Just to add something ''juicy'' . A cold core reactor will retain plasma flow around the core . The cold core will act as a ''tractor beam'' . Edited May 8, 2020 by Zodiac -4
Phi for All Posted May 8, 2020 Posted May 8, 2020 13 minutes ago, Zodiac said: How about you learn how to create math as inputting values to existing formulas isn't math! ! Moderator Note Normally, Appeal to Authority is considered fallacious reasoning, but I'm going out on a limb here and I'm going to argue that Dr Swanson's capabilities in mathematics exceed your own by several orders of magnitude. The US Naval Observatory thinks highly enough of him as a physicist to let him run the atomic clocks that GPS uses to achieve such incredible accuracy. It's clear you aren't really listening, which means discussion probably won't work to fill the gaps in your knowledge. It's a shame, we've had lots of folks like you who learned a great deal from discussion, but discussion is a two-way street that requires as much listening as talking. If school didn't work for you, and we know discussion isn't a strength, you should try something else to combat ignorance. Three pages is too long to be this obstinate about learning. If there was any science happening in this thread, I'd leave it open, but it's actually creating a negative learning experience, obviously. Don't bother to open any more threads like this, please. 1
swansont Posted May 8, 2020 Posted May 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Zodiac said: How about you learn how to create math as inputting values to existing formulas isn't math! If (a) = -0.5 and (b) = 0.5 then a+b=0 and a^3+b^3 still equals 0 . Units matter 1 hour ago, Zodiac said: And if you mean the suns density question , the answer is var (p) where p is density . cm^3 on the Sun are dynamic in energy levels dependent to the kE going on ! I'll take that as "I can't answer the question"
Recommended Posts