All Four Forces of Physics United

[BeepKillBeep]

@MANTRAPHILTER

My theory is correct

No, it really isn’t. It does not coincide with well-known highly repeated experimental observations.

[MANTRAPHILTER]

@Irishman

You misunderstand what I was saying. I was talking about your description of the experiments and saying they don’t match any experiments I can identify, not that the results of the experiments do not match your claimed explanation.

No, you again are misunderstanding. The issue is not whether a proton is positive or neutral or empty or whatever, the issue is that you use a common word like “space” but then cannot come up with a simple description of what you mean when you say “space” is displaced, and the displaced space piles up and has more space than the space around it. That is an incoherent mess.

Look at the example I gave of an analogy. That analogy may or may not correctly reflect what you mean, but it is an attempt to use better words to describe the supposed behavior so we can at least comprehend what you are trying to explain. Your words are gobbledygook that are nigh impossible to make sense of, independent of any disagreements with established science.

Then you couple that with times when it is difficult to tell whether you are restating what established science claims or stating your version. You say something about electrons being attracted to the negative plate, and we’re left guessing whether you are complaining that that is what science claims happens (it is not), or whether you are claiming that is your explanation of what is occurring.

Hell, even if I were to agree that words are better suited to explaining your concepts than math, the words you choose and the way you arrange them are far inferior to the words and use by, well, anyone else. Your use of standard English is mangled and you do not make clear whether you are explaining what science claims or what you claim.

I am not confused by what established science claims, nor am I confused by your concept that there is only one type of charge, and the difference in subatomic particles is due to some presence or absence instead. What confuses me is your inability to define your terms as to how you are using them such that I can glean the intent of your descriptions.

For example, when you say space is displaced, I can sort of see that as taking “space” to mean “the fabric of spacetime”, and thus matter does not sit in spacetime, it pushes it out of the way kind of like putting bananas into pudding - the bananas move the pudding outward.

Except you seem to be stating that the spacetime fabric is compressed as it is displaced and impedes upon the spacetime that is already there. So that is why I brought up the foam analogy, where the foam gets squished around the marbles. Thus, spacetime has different densities depending upon how much matter is around to displace spacetime and thereby squish into the spacetime already there.

This bears some casual resemblance to Einstein’s description of gravity being a warping so spacetime. I say casual, because there doesn’t seem to be any conceptual framework to make the two concepts connect in any way, just the behavior of space as getting bent and/or squished.

See, this is an example of what I mean.

That is not how a generator works.

Says you? By what evidence do you contradict the earliest experiments in electricity that provide the common understanding of how CRTs are built? Did we magically stumble on a working arrangement of parts despite having a bass-ackwards understanding of what charge even is?

No. Movement of a conductor through a magnetic field will induce a current. Generators use repeated winding of copper wire around a core that is then spun through a magnetic field to generate a flow of electrons in the wire. The magnetic poles have nothing to do with pushing or pulling electrons. Magnetic north/south are not the same thing as electrical positive and negative.

No they are not. They are interrelated and couple the behavior of electricity and magnetism, but they are distinct conceptual identities that act at right angles to each other.

You’ve mangled something here, because you have a positive pole pushing electrons and a negative pole pulling them, which is exactly the opposite of opposites attract.

You do not appear to understand what those terms mean or how the concepts are understood by science to be able to make a coherent statement of an alternative explanation.

Ditto.

You think the concepts as you understand how science describes them is horseshit, but it is your understanding of what science says that is lacking.

The problem is you are believing the guy who presents himself as well educated, It is their job to stand in front of you and lecture you about the misinformation he has also learned from some other guy. Oh but he’s the professor! He gets paid to teach, so he presents his misinformation from the memory of who ever taught him, but he really doesn’t understand what he is talking about, and he will never admit that. Because he feels good about being viewed as your superior, and so he presents himself to you that way.

Agreed.

Something got lost in translation. naita did not describe any process of crossing rods. You said

Underlining added.

Protons and neutrons are made of different combinations of quarks, so they have different masses.

Quarks are only theory made up to explain what holds protons in a nucleus, also gluons. It is the space displaced by a particle that holds the nucleus together. its not so hard to believe and it is simple.

There is another explanation: you have a faulty understanding of what makes a proton and a neutron, so your assumption that a charged particle should weigh more than an uncharged one is faulty.

then why do they say the charged battery should weigh more than an uncharged battery.

[Trinopus]

@Itself

Yes, but this is someone who thinks that dark matter (or dark energy) was conjured up by physicists to explain negative energy, which he thinks is the same as negative electric charge. It’s hard for me, at least, to have much sympathy for him.

@MANTRAPHILTER

Again, there is not an equal and opposite negative charge. regardless of which direction a current flows in a wire, it is still a positive charge.

You’re making Itself’s point for him: you obviously do not comprehend the way current works in a wire. Even a typical home electrician knows more about current than this!

Go ahead and switch the positive and negative terminals on the battery in your car. We’ll watch.

[Trinopus]

@MANTRAPHILTER

then why do they say the charged battery should weigh more than an uncharged battery.

Einstein’s theory of Relativity: energy is interchangeable with matter. The charged battery contains more potential energy, and thus weighs more…but, as noted, by so incredibly small an amount that no set of scales known can weigh it.

[Itself]

@Trinopus

You’re making Itself’s point for him: you obviously do not comprehend the way current works in a wire. Even a typical home electrician knows more about current than this!

Go ahead and switch the positive and negative terminals on the battery in your car. We’ll watch.

But that wouldn’t prove anything, because you can’t ever do the same experiment twice and everything is relative and math is a lie and if the theory contradicts experimental facts then the facts must be wrong. This is a guy who believes that electrons are collapsed light waves. It’s fun to point and laugh, but you’re not going to get him to realize that his 500-word essay explaning all the physics ever is bullshit.

[MANTRAPHILTER]

This bears some casual resemblance to Einstein’s description of gravity being a warping so spacetime. I say casual, because there doesn’t seem to be any conceptual framework to make the two concepts connect in any way, just the behavior of space as getting bent and/or squished.{end quote}

It does bear a lot or resemblance to Einstein’s theory. The math is what breaks down in Einstein’s theory at the atomic level, My theory works at all levels. E= mc2 means that mass converts to energy. If mass converts to energy, why is there ash in my fire place. It is the energy escaping from the displaced space around the atoms as they are put under pressure from heat, not the mass of the particles being converted to energy.

[BeepKillBeep]

@MANTRAPHILTER

If mass converts to energy, why is there ash in my fire place.

Oh god, I’m dyin’.

I’m now convinced this can’t possibly be serious.

[MANTRAPHILTER]

You’re making Itself’s point for him: you obviously do not comprehend the way current works in a wire. Even a typical home electrician knows more about current than this!

Go ahead and switch the positive and negative terminals on the battery in your car. We’ll watch.

The car will not start because the energy flows backwards through the circuit and does not reach the mechanical implements needed for the starting process to happen. I’ve seen it done before, it burned out the fusible link because the charge of the energy is not grounded and cant complete the circuit, I ended up with a free motor home because I fixed it.

[MANTRAPHILTER]

The positive side of the magnet pushes the electrons away O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+
O+
while the negative side pulls them back the circuit is a circle O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+O+

The whole system is grounded but the electrons never change to a negative charge.

[MANTRAPHILTER]

@Trinopus

You’re making Itself’s point for him: you obviously do not comprehend the way current works in a wire. Even a typical home electrician knows more about current than this!

Go ahead and switch the positive and negative terminals on the battery in your car. We’ll watch.

I have wired a few homes, you are talking about something you think you understand but you do not.

[MANTRAPHILTER]

@Trinopus

You’re making Itself’s point for him: you obviously do not comprehend the way current works in a wire. Even a typical home electrician knows more about current than this!

Go ahead and switch the positive and negative terminals on the battery in your car. We’ll watch.

@Itself

But that wouldn’t prove anything, because you can’t ever do the same experiment twice and everything is relative and math is a lie and if the theory contradicts experimental facts then the facts must be wrong. This is a guy who believes that electrons are collapsed light waves. It’s fun to point and laugh, but you’re not going to get him to realize that his 500-word essay explaning all the physics ever is bullshit.

the theory does not contradict the experiments that have been done, only their description of what they have observed.

[Itself]

@MANTRAPHILTER

It does bear a lot or resemblance to Einstein’s theory. The math is what breaks down in Einstein’s theory at the atomic level, My theory works at all levels.

What a surprise: A crackpot has a problem with relativity and blames it on fancy math. Never saw that coming.

[MANTRAPHILTER]

I am getting bored with all of you condemning my theory because it violates what you think is your correct interpretation of the world we live in, and I am going to unsubscribe to this thread. I do not care if any of you ever understand my theory, I guess its harder than I thought to tear down a hundred or so years of misunderstanding. Just know that I am laughing just as hard at what I know is your foolishness.

[Itself]

@MANTRAPHILTER

I am getting bored with all of you condemning my theory because it violates what you think is your correct interpretation of the world we live in, and I am going to unsubscribe to this thread. I do not care if any of you ever understand my theory, I guess its harder than I thought to tear down a hundred or so years of misunderstanding. Just know that I am laughing just as hard at what I know is your foolishness.

cool story, bro

[BeepKillBeep]

@MANTRAPHILTER

I guess its harder than I thought to tear down a hundred or so years of misunderstanding.

On behalf of only myself, thanks for the laughs. Especially the ash in the fireplace. That was killer material.

[Itself]

@BeepKillBeep

On behalf of only myself, thanks for the laughs. Especially the ash in the fireplace. That was killer material.

I might have to appropriate that for my signature here. It’s comedy gold.

[BeepKillBeep]

@Itself

I might have to appropriate that for my signature here. It’s comedy gold.

Glad to be of some service.

[naita]

@MANTRAPHILTER

The math is what breaks down in Einstein’s theory at the atomic level, My theory works at all levels. E= mc2 means that mass converts to energy. If mass converts to energy, why is there ash in my fire place. It is the energy escaping from the displaced space around the atoms as they are put under pressure from heat, not the mass of the particles being converted to energy.

You do realize this can be measured and has? In chemical reactions the energy/mass loss is negligible compared to the overall mass. In nuclear reactions it is larger but still a fraction of a percent.

In both of these, except if the nuclear reaction involves anti-matter, the number of particles are the same before and after the reaction.

And in nuclear fission and other spontaneous nuclear reaction there is no correlation between the reaction with heat or pressure. Carbon-14 will just hang out in the atmosphere doing nothing, but at an average rate of half the atoms every 5730 years there will be the emission of what appears to experimenters without your unique insight to be a high speed electron, and the remainder will appear, to anyone, to be Nitrogen-14, which can be measured to weigh slightly less.

Heat and pressure does not affect the rate at all, so how can they be responsible?

[Itself]

@naita

You do realize this can be measured and has? In chemical reactions the energy/mass loss is negligible compared to the overall mass. In nuclear reactions it is larger but still a fraction of a percent.

In both of these, except if the nuclear reaction involves anti-matter, the number of particles are the same before and after the reaction.

And in nuclear fission and other spontaneous nuclear reaction there is no correlation between the reaction with heat or pressure. Carbon-14 will just hang out in the atmosphere doing nothing, but at an average rate of half the atoms every 5730 years there will be the emission of what appears to experimenters without your unique insight to be a high speed electron, and the remainder will appear, to anyone, to be Nitrogen-14, which can be measured to weigh slightly less.

Since the OP has wandered off to pester some other message board about his nonsense, I’ll answer for him. The fancy math about Carbon-14 is just a lie thought up by miseducated physicists to explain something they don’t understand. Any “scientific” experiment is only relative to the place where it was conducted. You need to ensure that the instruments are shielded from relativity, which is wrong anyway. The theory is right regardless of what the “scientific” “experiments” say; any apparent contradiction is just a result of physicists’ using the wrong definitions. Protons and neutrons are the same thing, except when they’re not, and electrons are negative charges without particles that are created by squeezing photon waves around the gravity well of an atom. And negative means positive, because there is no such thing as negative charge, and electrons just have more charge than protons.

@naita

Heat and pressure does not affect the rate at all, so how can they be responsible?

The website explains everything. You obviously haven’t read it.

(Also, the OP mentioned wiring a house before, and the author of that website was an electrician. Hmm…)

[Mangetout]

@Trinopus

But antimatter? Observed many, many times, and created in countless particle accelerator experiments. Antimatter is as well-observed in reality as protons and neutrons! You might as well have doubts about the existence of electric charge!

Well, about that last thing…