Hey, that’s awesome. Congratulations!
Do. You. Have. Experimental. Data. That. Supports. This. Assertion. ???
Yes, congratulations. Waiting for that first response is always nerve-wracking.
(Of course, you may only have a brief moment of glory until a retraction is issued for all of science in light of MANTRAPHILTER’s findings…)
No, that is simply wrong. Magnetic poles do not push and pull electrons. A change in the magnetic field inside a loop of wire will make the electrons move, that’s how a generator works.
Again you need to look at some very basic physics experiments and try to explain what happens. If you drop a bar magnet through the centre of loop of wire you get an electric current. The poles pushing on electrons cannot explain that, so if your theory involves magnetic poles pushing electrons it is invalidated by the experiment.
Positive and negative are just words for two opposite charges. There’s no differences between them as pertains to energy. We could swap them around and call electrons positive and protons negative with zero effect on the current theories, it would just be a hassle to have every text in the world outdated due to confusion.
We could flip a coin and call one of them plurdle and one of them anti-plurdle, with the sum of them having zero charge.
If your original problem is with the language you’ve not understood any of the physics to begin with.
If you have a lot of energy you can create from nothing particle/anti-particle pairs, these will have identical mass but opposite charge. For instance an electron and anti-electron, or proton and anti-proton. We’ve captured these anti-particles and kept them trapped long enough to do experiments on them, including getting them to form anti-hydrogen, which behaves like hydrogen in the ways we’ve been able to test.
When they meet up again they annihilate and you’re left with just energy and no mass or charge.
How does your model deal with these real world experimental results?
You don’t need to introduce anything as complicated as antiparticles. You’re dealing with someone who thinks that “the electron is a positive charge free of any particle,” and who also thinks that that sentence is meaningful. He thinks that electrons have no mass, that neutrons are just protons with zero charge, and that protons can have arbitrary charge by releasing or absorbing electrons. All three of those assertions are blatantly contradicted by simple experiments that go back to the beginning of the 20th century.
I wasn’t here over the weekend. Is it too late to assume a spherical pike?
Better to assume a chair-ical Pike, with blinking lights for yes-no questions.
I do not think there are two opposite charges. this is what you are not understanding about my model. particles are either charged or not charged. A particle displaces the space that it occupies, because the space is displaced, it creates a pocket surrounding the particle of warped space that we call gravity. energy enters the space in the form of a photon light wave. The wave expands relative to the pocket of space around the particle. the particle becomes charged. When you say opposite charge, you are only talking about the energy leaving the charged particle. A magnet has all of its electrons aligned in a way as to accept energy from one side and export energy from the other side. This does not mean that there is an energy form that is an opposite. An electron is energy that has entered the space displace by an already charged particle and the energy does not charge the already charged particle, but instead stacks up against the wall of space that is different outside of the space being displaced by the already charged particle. This creates what we call an electron. The electron is nothing more than a photon light wave with its wave function collapsed. It is not an opposite of energy. To say it is a negative charge is misleading and just plain stupid. Any energy that is called dark energy is just a photon light wave that has expanded to such a wave length that wee can not see it. It is not an opposite of energy. The only way there could be an opposite form of energy is to move past the speed of light and eliminate the source of the energy before the energy was ever created. So go ahead and move past the speed of light and do it, you might as well, you believe in a negative energy. I don’t understand why people believe this horse shit. Dark energy? Antimatter? HORSE SHIT.
We don’t believe in what you think we believe in. Nobody believes in that.
He doesn’t understand the difference between electric charge and energy. That’s why, for example, he doesn’t think that negative charges make any sense, and why he doesn’t find it absolutely ridiculous to suggest that an electron is just a light wave (or what he describes as a “collapsed wave function” of a photon, but there is no chance whatsoever that he knows what that phrase actually means.)
You don’t properly understand what you’re disagreeing with.
And I don’t have to be a mind reader to determine that - this entire thread, and your hypothesis, is a misdirected response against your own deeply flawed apprehension of established physics. You have not at any point demonstrated that you understand the thing you’re disagreeing with. The ‘physics’ you’re railing against is a massive strawman.
the sun radiates energy in the form of a wave of light, the light wave enters the space around the particle and charges it. That is your electric charge. once the particle is charged, any more light waves entering the space displaced by the particle amplifies due to the relative “more” space and is repelled by the positive charged particle. The wave collapses and is held inside the displaced space as an electron. It is this reason energy is quantized. It does not matter if you want to believe otherwise. You can be wrong and still make a living spewing your bullshit to anyone who will listen.
Forget anti-matter and dark energy. You need to start by explaining everyday phenomena. And this idea of yours where there’s either charge or no charge is incompatible with them.
If I rub a glass rod vigorously with a polyester cloth something happens to the glass rod. Among other effects there’s the fact that if I touch it to two very light objects, like tiny pieces of cork, suspended by insulating string, the objects will repel each other. If I bring the glass rod near again, especially after further rubbing, it will also repel the pieces of cork.
I can repeat the experiment with an ebonite rod and nylon cloth, and this appears to be the same phenomenon, but if I try to cross over I find that the ebonite rod attracts the cork pieces treated with the glass rod, and the glass rod attracts the cork pieces treated with the ebonite rod.
How do you explain this without accepting the concept of opposite charges?
And before you just type out the first explanation that pops into your mind, know that similarly basic experiments tie these results directly to the concept of electrical current, and that magnets do nothing observable to the corks or the rods.
Therein lies the most important question you should be asking yourself. Once you understand this then you’ll be able to get somewhere.
I’ll give you a hint. It starts with the letter “l” and rhymes with “earn”.
Makes not a damn bit of difference what you “think”. What can you prove? Do you have experimental data to support your hypothesis? Describe your experiments and methodology so it can be repeated and verified. Show the work that supports your hypotheses. In other words, put up or shut up.
As an experiment of my own, I predict that he’s going to ignore your question, just reiterate the same nonsense he’s been spewing here for the last pages, and add in some bits about the sheeple are too cowardly or educated stupid and evil to recognize the truth of his theory. It’s like people who pass out tracts on subway corners, then can’t understand why reciting a Bible verse to someone doesn’t instantly convert them.
Yeah, honestly, I don’t know why I keep coming back to this thread. It must be the “train wreck” effect. You want to look away but you just can’t. I keep hoping that the OP will recognize the mistakes he’s making, as alluded to above the biggest of all being that he doesn’t understand the science or the process of scientific discovery, and move on to correcting them. Not that I think there’s anything to his hypothesis; however, I think if he were to try to correct it he would find that it doesn’t work. Seems a shame to see somebody obsessed with something so likely to be incorrect. What a waste of time.
For me, I find crackpots oddly intriguing. Not their actual theories, of course— that’s worthless nonsense---- but I find the psychology interesting of someone who would be that obsessed with an idea that’s manifestly completely wrong. They all follow the same pattern:
[ol]
[li]Making grandiose claims (it’s always a Theory of Everything or a disproof of relativity or quantum mechanics, never (as actual scientists have to content themselves with) a modest improvement);[/li][li]Ranting about sheeple, the scientific orthodoxy, etc.;[/li][li]Dismissing any proposed or existing, already-established experiments that disagree with the theory;[/li][li]Obsession with minor details, like a choice of terminology;[/li][li]Insistence that their theory would be rigorous if someone could just help them with the math, or (as here) that math just gets in the way of Real Science;[/li][li]Ignoring questions about the theory and just restating the same very flawed thesis over and over again (also, as in this case, pointing toward a brief blurb on a website and claiming that that answers all the questions).[/li][li]Not understanding the problem they’re trying to solve. In this case, for example, the OP clearly has no understanding of general relativity (see whatever the hell he’s talking about with gravity around atoms), quantum mechanics (electrons as collapsed wave functions of light waves), the weak interaction (atoms decay because they’re squeezed by light, and that’s apparently all that interaction does), dark energy (it’s like energy, but negative). He doesn’t even understand the difference between electric charge and energy, which is high-school level stuff.[/li][li]Not even understanding what science is, despite claiming to overturn it. They have no interest in experiments, mathematical models, existing theories and their experimental confirmations, or scientific rigor. They can’t tell the difference between something like the OP here and, say, any random undergrad-level physics textbook.[/li][/ol]
Yeah, but it’s not like that time could be better used elsewhere. I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that the OP is not making his posts in between, say, performing surgeries.
…Or performing experiments and learning math.