I guess it wouldn’t actually be a charge, just the negative equator that is attracting all of the stars to it.
So, how do ya like me now?
You might be fun to have beers and play pool with, but your theory is complete bullshit.
Not at all impressed, to be honest.
Your hypothesis either lacks rigor or needs needs more cow bell.
Are you branching out into New Age mysticism? I think that could be a much more successful niche for you, those guys might look rather favorably on your unique, erm, literary style.
Alternatively, have you considered a career writing postmodern social theory?
And yet, we’re not the ones having trouble putting our physics into practice.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and speak for the establishment, who did not pick me as a spokesperson.
Nobody besides yourself has ever seriously asserted than negatively charged electrons are attracted to a negative plate, or repelled by a positively charged plate.
Electrons are repelled by a negative charge and attracted to a positive charge. You’re the only one asserting that anyone said the opposite. The absence of exploding TVs demonstrates that we are not wrong about this.
You are the only one asserting that anyone claimed like charges attract.
No, the electrons go in a circle, an electric circuit as you might call it. You should look into the physical construction of a cathode ray tube and explain how this real object functions within your theoretical framework instead of making up nonsense without a grasp of real experiments.
I note you totally ignored the other real physical experiments I referenced, but I’ll throw in one more you definitely need to explain if you’re to be taken seriously at all.
Some radioactive materials send out “something” that behaves in electrical and magnetic fields as if current models of electrical and magnetic fields were correct, and as if the “somethings” had the charge of two protons and four nuclear particles. If slowed down and trapped they absorb two electrons per particle from surrounding matter and start behaving like helium gas. How do you explains these real life experimental results?
The famous experiment where you project a beam of charged particles at a tinfoil hat.
QED.
Regards,
Shodan
So I got a peer review back today on a journal paper I submitted. As expected there is some criticism, and it is very good criticism. Nothing major of course, just questions and issues pertaining to how things are presented. Correcting the issues spotted by the reviewers will make the paper better. As I was reading it I was couldn’t help but chuckle a bit picturing Mantra getting back a peer review on paper. He has such a high level of hostility to simple questions and any criticism, even when constructive. Would he reply to the reviewers calling them sheep who cannot understand his superior language? I’m not quite sure that would go over well. Anyway, it made for an amusing mental image, hopefully some of the rest of you can get a chuckle out of it as well. Oh and I think my paper will ultimately get accepted so … Yay me (and my co-author)!
This SMBC just came up at random in my Facebook feed and seems strangely appropriate.
how much charge does a nuclear particle have?
if you have a magnet and you rotate it as in the case of a generator, the positive pole of the magnet will push away the electrons, and the negative pole will pull them back. Since the electrons are what create energy as they move through a wire in an electrical system, how can you say they have a negative charge?
you see, it is your definition of the particles and their charges that is wrong.
you talk as if a magnetic field and an electric field are two different things. they are the same thing.
Because the positive pole pushes them and the negative pole pulls them. Opposites attract, and vice versa.
Electrons don’t create energy, if that has anything to do with it, whatever “it” is.
Regards,
Shodan
What kind of applied experimental evidence do you have to support these assertions?
Can you share the details of your experiments including equipment description, methodology, actual results?
Electrons have about -1.602 x 10[sup]-19[/sup] coulombs, and protons the same, except positive. Neutrons have no charge.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, I can answer this one.
No.
It is the flow of energy in one direction or the other. the concept is identical accept that you have the charges backwards. the electron is a positive charge free of any particle and is able to be absorbed by a particle, that is what I keep trying to make you under stand, your language that gives a negative designation to the electron is wrong. your understanding of the concept is right, I just do not agree with the language describing the electron as a negative charge. An electron is energy, energy should have the positive designation, any particle that can absorb energy should have the negative designation. A proton is a particle with a charge already stored in it. a neutron is the same as the proton, only it is not charged, and able to absorb energy.
so if you want to keep using the confusing language that is popular, and makes it hard to understand go, right ahead, you still understand the concept, you are just using fucked up language to describe it.