Maybe you'll be interested

[TeleMad]

TelMad,

 

Please read my other notes, please.

 

I did. I read what you posted here. If you can't and don't explain yourself here, then it's YOUR fault if people don't understand you.

 

You've had a job to do from post #1 in this thread and you've failed to do it, even when explicitly asked to.

 

NAdams: No, stuff from sun starts the process. Then LIKE GEODES, planets grow from the INSIDE!

 

Then what the hell was this about?

 

NAdams: TeleMad, the sun spews out matter. Where is it? 100 M. tons per second for 5 billion years.

 

Well?

 

Based on what you had said at this site, you were proposing that the Earth expanded from accumulation of material from the sun and/or from the de novo creation of matter in the Earth's core. The second violates laws of physics and no one other than a moron would propose it. That's why I assumed you were going with the first. But now that isn't correct either. So I guess I shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Your garbage has been moved out of the science forums and into the strange claims forum where it belongs. Now that your position has been recognized as not science, and strange, I feel it's been appropriately dealt with.

[NAdams]

Fine, describe why subduction doesn't exist, AND also show why all of the scientific data supporting sudduction is flawed. Also, you still haven't described how your theory increases the mass of the earth without violating well established physics principles, why if the mass increases the earth doesn't slow down in its rotation...etc. If you want your claim to be taken seriously, please answer these direct questions about your theory.

-Will

 

 

I am truly surprised, Will.

 

Exactly what scientific evidence for subduction are you speaking of. There is no scientific evidence for subduction. That is in fact the problem of subduction. No direct scientific evidence. If you know some tell me. I’ve been looking for 35 years.

 

There are trenches pointed to but they are explained as easily as rift and spreads in deeper undersea plate. Actually more easily.

 

No trench has been measured year to year to show anything.

 

Geologists insists continents are moving toward each other south to north and the Mediterranean is closing.

 

Yet, as a bridge is contemplated between Gibraltar and Africa, practical geologists and engineers are forced to add to their plan that the two lands spread apart 4 centimeters a year (not my facts).

 

Between the northern continents and southern continents existed, 80 million years ago, a 2000 mile wide Tethys Sea. Since then the continents are moving together. Very profound. Yet there are no, even theoretical subduction zones to swallow up the Tethys Sea area as it “closes” nothing.

 

Worse, in the last 70 million years the seas around Antarctica have spread wider and wider all around Antarctica. 360 degrees and no even theoretical subduction zones anywhere 360 degrees in any direction. There is no proof!! In all the notes to me, did anyone list proofs for me to refute?

 

I didn’t read any. I’d have been glad for it.

 

Some ask, if I’m right then geologists will fall in line. No, I don’t think so. They will defend the status quo even if they see evidence with their own eyes. I’m not defending string theory or the possibility of time travel. It’s stuff that we can see and measure.

 

Proofs? I welcome the chance. It’s not there.

 

Physics? Well, that’s a bigger question. That’s what took so long for me to work out (35 years).

 

Science, after a few thousand years, showed us everything was made of atoms and the atoms were made of 3 things, electrons, protons and neutrons. That was a big leap forward.

 

Since then, we found more particles. But if you think about it, our goal, if possible, was to get it down simpler, not more complicated, right? Unify it all.

 

We could do that if we found basic particles that make all the other particles.

 

What would be ideal is a neutral particle that could become one positive particle and one negative particle. +1 and –1 equals zero! That would be best.

 

Oddly enough, Carl David Anderson saw that happen in 1932. From nothing zero, (presumably) was made an electron and a positron. Two equal sized particles, one negative, one positive made from some invisible (to us) particle. That’s quite impressive, you know. I mean, electrons are the negative particles that are in everything, around every atom. I’m impressed by that, big time. It’s not string theory but quite impressive.

 

Now the positron, the problem child.

 

The positron seeks out an electron and mutually annihilates with it.

 

Well, that’s impressive too. Destruction of matter, my god.

 

Is that actually what happened… if we don’t jump to conclusions and name the positron anti-matter. Can we stop time right there and consider…

 

Annihilation? Really? Didn’t those two exist in some kind of harmony before a cosmic ray punched them into our own reality. Perhaps they simply went back to their previous state. Actually that is more likely.

 

So, what’s missing from this picture?

 

A proton! Big thing 1836 times the size of an electron. This begins to look interesting.

 

What if we could coat that positron with some neutral particles… a lot of particles… before it meets an electron? Protect them both.

 

But in a primitive universe what can we use to coat it.

 

What about those invisible things we made our electron and positron from? Can we use them to coat the positron? Why would they do it?

 

Simple. A positron is positive electromagnetically, unlike the electron. Before we create a design for this… prime…. matter…. particle let’s coat the positron with 459 or 918 of them… until it becomes a proton.

 

If we can do this, far out as it may seem at first blush, if that electron gets close, the two will become a hydrogen atom.

 

And with that hydrogen atom…. we can build a universe… out of…. nothing. Prime matter is…by the way…. dark matter.

 

Neal Adams

[Erasmus00]

I'll leave the geology to someone more versed in the science than I. However, I will comment on your physics.

 

We could do that if we found basic particles that make all the other particles.

 

Right now those particles are quarks and leptons, and there are quite a few of them. Your idea is not a new one.

 

Two equal sized particles, one negative, one positive made from some invisible (to us) particle. That’s quite impressive, you know. I mean, electrons are the negative particles that are in everything, around every atom.

 

They didn't come from some invisible particle. Positron-electron pair creation is well explained by our current understanding of quantum behavior. Cosmic rays are highly energetic, some of that energy can briefly form a positron/electron pair, which quickly anhillates again.

 

Now the positron, the problem child.

The positron seeks out an electron and mutually annihilates with it.

Well, that’s impressive too. Destruction of matter, my god.

 

Whats even more amazing is that dirac predicted anti-matter (which must have seemed an amazingly strange claim) before Anderson discovered it.

 

Annihilation? Really? Didn’t those two exist in some kind of harmony before a cosmic ray punched them into our own reality. Perhaps they simply went back to their previous state. Actually that is more likely.

 

This doesn't make sense. The positron and electron didn't appear out of some alternate reality, and I don't know why you feel the need to posit one.

 

A proton! Big thing 1836 times the size of an electron. This begins to look interesting.

 

What if we could coat that positron with some neutral particles… a lot of particles… before it meets an electron? Protect them both.

But in a primitive universe what can we use to coat it.

What about those invisible things we made our electron and positron from? Can we use them to coat the positron? Why would they do it?

Simple. A positron is positive electromagnetically, unlike the electron. Before we create a design for this… prime…. matter…. particle let’s coat the positron with 459 or 918 of them… until it becomes a proton.

If we can do this, far out as it may seem at first blush, if that electron gets close, the two will become a hydrogen atom.

 

Protons aren't made up of leptons and neutral particles. They are made up of quarks, which are different thing (non-integer charges and the like). And, you have given no reason for neutral particles to conglomerate around a positron. Also, if your particle is so ethereal as to be invisible, how does it interact with other particles to stop positron-electron anhillation? Your claim is indeed a strange one.

-Will

[Tormod]

Exactly what scientific evidence for subduction are you speaking of. There is no scientific evidence for subduction. That is in fact the problem of subduction. No direct scientific evidence. If you know some tell me. I’ve been looking for 35 years.

 

Either you are willfully ignoring it or you don't know where to look. The latter seems impossible.

 

It would be better if you would drop all your strawman arguments and come out of the closet: You do not accept the science in this field. That is not the same as saying there is no evidence. It's you who carry the burden of proof. The evidence for subduction is so strong that any "growing earth" theory needs to be based on something else.

 

Why you lapse into a mythical particle adventure is beyond me. It sounds like rambling.

 

Understanding plate motions

 

Scientists now have a fairly good understanding of how the plates move and how such movements relate to earthquake activity. Most movement occurs along narrow zones between plates where the results of plate-tectonic forces are most evident.

 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/understanding.html

Beyond Discovery: Understanding plate techtonics

 

http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.article.asp?a=229

[NAdams]

I did. I read what you posted here. If you can't and don't explain yourself here, then it's YOUR fault if people don't understand you.

 

You've had a job to do from post #1 in this thread and you've failed to do it, even when explicitly asked to.

 

 

 

Then what the hell was this about?

 

 

 

Well?

 

Based on what you had said at this site, you were proposing that the Earth expanded from accumulation of material from the sun and/or from the de novo creation of matter in the Earth's core. The second violates laws of physics and no one other than a moron would propose it. That's why I assumed you were going with the first. But now that isn't correct either. So I guess I shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt.

 

Your garbage has been moved out of the science forums and into the strange claims forum where it belongs. Now that your position has been recognized as not science, and strange, I feel it's been appropriately dealt with.

Dear Telemad,

You are one rude mother, I’ll give you that. Did you read my lengthy note on subduction? Just curious.

Where I am posted hardly matters to me, it is a reflection of the sites attitude. I have been totally cooperative, while ‘some’ of you fellas have been downright rude.

Whether I am a whacko or not, if my theories are revolutionary, they will not, repeat will not, agree with the status quo, do you expect them to??? And even the smartest respondent, ESPECIALLY the smartest respondents, will ridicule a new theory, especially if they don’t get it. It’s a given. Has man changed in the last generation? That’s not been my experience. And the followers, though originally interested, will follow the leader and the crowd. Isn’t that the pattern? I’ve hit it before. Not all science.

My next note will skim into the upper stratosphere of the physics, but I note no one has responded to my tectonics note, odd don’t you think? I had a lot of facts.

In addition, questions; I have to say I’ve had more pointed questions from high school students. Nobody says ‘explain your theory’, goodness me.

Telemad, look we’ve had, for the last 150 years, a worn out working hypothesis. Goes like this, “There was this whole bunch of stuff floating around and along comes gravity and gathers it together into planets and moons and stuff.’

O…..kay!

Where was gravity before this, our birthday? Missing? So with the red shift we are told something exploded. What? I don’t know everything. Of course the question we WANT to know the answer to is where did it come from in the first place? If it blew up or not is not as important as that?

Then we are told Earth and the rest pretty much gathered together at once. Hundred million years? Half a billion? ‘Theories’ vary, but sort of like genesis, poof, you got Earth, full grown. Hmmm.

Then, because it all happened in a bunch, Earth became a molten ball that cooled. (How you get subduction on a smooth granitic ball, I’ll never know, but that’s another subject.)

It cools. After 2 billion years we get a little water. Then, somehow, subduction, I guess. Cause down the line we became a planet that has one big giant island on one side, 1/4 of the planet’s surface. The rest of the planet, 3/4’s of it, is SALT water five miles deep. A very unique planet. Somewhere in there a rogue planet, not in orbit, crashed into Earth and kicked a chunk, at not quite escape velocity, out to become our Moon. Incredible then the rogue went on.

Now this island, on one side of this incredibly unique planet, broke in half and spread apart. Why? I don’t know. No telling what the oceanic crust looked like under that ocean. Two street elevators in the Pacific side subducting and an opening rift in a space we call the Tethys Sea. Opening, it cut right across that island. The two pieces move, for some reason, to and over the poles and the sea widens to 2000 miles over the poles. Then those pieces began to move, break up and spread out and begin to move back to the equator, except Antarctica. (Why? I don’t know!) where they will one day crash together. And you guys put ME on the whacko theory page?

I think we should be judged by the fairy tales we tell.

This is my crazy fairy tale. My proofs are in your books.

The universe was empty and , oh so mildly electro-magnetic, and so a portion spins slightly. I made up that part cause electro-magnetic makes spin.

The spin thins out ‘nothing’, (There’s a concept for ya. Thins out nothing. “Nature abhors…”) which stretches into little bubbles with in-facing fields. We call this Dark Matter. We just recently discovered it. I hypothesized it 30 years ago, so when we found it I gave myself a check in that column.

Energy, of some sort, did what Carl David Anderson saw in 1932. Popped an electron and a positron into our universe. Does it all the time, everywhere. They P.E.T. scan your body with the process. It’s inside the Sun a lot, inside the Earth, Jupiter, big time inside Jupiter. Electro magnetic field, big one flows right through the core, makes a lot of this stuff.

Anyway the electrons do well, in fact, they are exactly half of the universe. Ah … now, don’t get ahead of me. We’ve ‘sort of’ established that neutral means one positive, one negative, positron and electron.

Okay, too much, but you can read it over again a couple of times. Let’s move on.

Positron seems to mutually annihilate with electrons. What if they

Don’t? They just become Dark Matter again and seem to disappear. Plink*

What if, in fact, we can protect the positron in layers of prime (dark) matter and buffer it in until it builds up layers so it BECOMES A PROTON.

Well, what else do ya do with the damned things? Layers of prime matter particles around a positron and it becomes a proton. The other half of a hydrogen atom.

You know in positive beta decay a proton fires out a POSITRON. Was it … in there all along?

I think so.

So now you’re making hydrogen. Lots and lots of hydrogen. Hydrogen doesn’t like gravity, but with spin, electro-magnetic spin, you might gather a lot of hydrogen in a galaxy and then in that galaxy in well known nodules to make and ignite suns.

Too bad. Only hydrogen. I can show you how to make helium out of hydrogen. Not here. The wrist is tired… just let me say briefly, hydrogen IS neutrons.

So you get it now, HELIUM. 10% of our hydrogen Sun is helium, so I guess it works.

Dead end again. But the Sun is continuing to heat up. It throws off stuff. But it does something else too. It strips the electrons from the helium ions, which brings us back to geology. What will ions do floating in a perfect medium.

They will ‘likely’ collect into a higher count ions … and they’ll do this ‘til they run into electrons and the electrons will stop the growth.

But now we have an iron atom, and all the others, ah, suns give birth to planets. How cute. Not … stuff floating around.

You can imagine the rest. Join in silicate and atomic bonds grow like geodes. Some small accretion, but more from atoms sliding along crystal lattices to the core and growing outward.

Did you know there’s a space or several spaces in the core of all meteorites (except for chondrites which grow only by accretion.) ---

The biggest chunks find the electro-magnetic lines of the sun and grow like geodes, accrete some, and finally in their empty core, begin the same process as from the sun and create matter, allow it to assemble in a thick plasma soup, attach at the bottom of the mantle, and push outward, cause crystal silicate has straight sides and CAN’T GROW INWARD.

This is, circling back, how we get a growing Earth. No ‘Big Bang’, no Pangea, no Tethys Sea. Prime matter particle is the matrix for all we know, from atom, to planet, to solar system, galaxy, universe. One layered electro-magnetic field.

Fairy tale?

No. A progressive, evolved, sensible universe. Abbreviated here, but following all the rules and filling in all the blanks.

Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t think so. I’ve tried very hard to find a hole in it.

Neal

[Tormod]

I think we should be judged by the fairy tales we tell.

 

Yup.

 

This is my crazy fairy tale. My proofs are in your books.

The universe was empty and , oh so mildly electro-magnetic, and so a portion spins slightly. I made up that part cause electro-magnetic makes spin.

The spin thins out ‘nothing’, (There’s a concept for ya. Thins out nothing. “Nature abhors…”) which stretches into little bubbles with in-facing fields. We call this Dark Matter. We just recently discovered it. I hypothesized it 30 years ago, so when we found it I gave myself a check in that column.

 

I am sure you hypothesized it. I think Ernest Sternglass (and Lemaitre) was there before you, though.

 

http://www.fourwallseightwindows.com/booksternglass1.html

 

and my brief review (almost 5 years old by now)

 

http://www.hypography.com/article.cfm?id=28091

 

Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t think so. I’ve tried very hard to find a hole in it.

 

Of course you're not wrong. In your world theories are either true or false. Simply put, the standard theories are lies, and your theories are the truth. Your theory spans from the birth of our universe to the growth of our planet. There can't be any holes in it. And the rest of us are too stupid to understand it.

[NAdams]

Right now those particles are quarks and leptons, and there are quite a few of them. Your idea is not a new one.

 

What is new is that quarks and leptons are made of prime matter particles. Quarks are at best guessed at. Don't you agree. If you have a small negative-positive particle you can build many particles and forms. At its base, the Universe must be simple, not complicated.

 

 

They didn't come from some invisible particle. Positron-electron pair creation is well explained by our current understanding of quantum behavior. Cosmic rays are highly energetic, some of that energy can briefly form a positron/electron pair, which quickly anhillates again.

 

Actually you don't know where they came from. So you cannot say "They didn't." I am not the carrier of new experimental knowledge. I am simply thinking about our old interpretations and re-integrating these old ideas into new thinking. It is preposterous to call a positron anti-matter simply because it 'seems' to mutually annihilate. This in a time when a common 'theory' says matter 'winks' in and out of existence all the time. Not my thinking. In fact, how if they annihilate could they have co-existed to be 'popped in' by a 'cosmic ray'. We need another description, how about 'disappear from our perception?'

 

Whats even more amazing is that dirac predicted anti-matter (which must have seemed an amazingly strange claim) before Anderson discovered it.

 

You might want to read Dirac before you assume he was predicting anti-matter rather than 'opposite charge electron'.

 

This doesn't make sense. The positron and electron didn't appear out of some alternate reality, and I don't know why you feel the need to posit one.

 

Of course I was being 'cute' about alternate reality. The reality of the prime matter particle is that it has an infacing electromagnetic field sealed by the electron shell. So in fact we cannot detect it.

 

Protons aren't made up of leptons and neutral particles. They are made up of quarks, which are different thing (non-integer charges and the like). And, you have given no reason for neutral particles to conglomerate around a positron. Also, if your particle is so ethereal as to be invisible, how does it interact with other particles to stop positron-electron anhillation? Your claim is indeed a strange one.

-Will

You are not correct here, Will. There is no need for prime matter to conglomerate around an electron which is negative and repulsive in charge, but plenty of reason to conglomerate around a positron which is positive and attractive. Again Will, you must know we do not 'see' particles at all, ever. We see or record or sense the electromagnetic fields of particles. What makes prime matter unique is its field is inward facing and does not push outward until the core positron is popped or knocked out. So we couldn't possibly see or know it. You are a mass of outward facing fields. What you have to consider is simple. Does a cosmic ray hit nothing or something that's split into an electron and a positron. Clearly it's something, and in fact it can be described by its effect.

[Tormod]

What you have to consider is simple. Does a cosmic ray hit nothing or something that's split into an electron and a positron. Clearly it's something, and in fact it can be described by its effect.

 

A prime example of logical fallacy. It's either A or B. It's not A, so it must be B.

[Erasmus00]

Actually you don't know where they came from. So you cannot say "They didn't." I am not the carrier of new experimental knowledge. I am simply thinking about our old interpretations and re-integrating these old ideas into new thinking. It is preposterous to call a positron anti-matter simply because it 'seems' to mutually annihilate. This in a time when a common 'theory' says matter 'winks' in and out of existence all the time. Not my thinking. In fact, how if they annihilate could they have co-existed to be 'popped in' by a 'cosmic ray'. We need another description, how about 'disappear from our perception?'

 

I think you don't understand the physics you are talking about. Quantum electrodynamics is a beautiful, self contained theory and it explains a myriad of phenomenon. You challenge it with a theory that explains nothing other then your questionable conjecture that the earth is growing.

 

You might want to read Dirac before you assume he was predicting anti-matter rather than 'opposite charge electron'.

 

Its you who probably needs to actually read Dirac. Dirac predicted a particle with all the properties of an electron, but with opposite charge. His theory predicted, when these two particles met, they would annihilate and release a burst of photons. He also predicted these particles could fluctuate into existance, if only for a brief duration. That is antimatter in all but name.

 

Of course I was being 'cute' about alternate reality. The reality of the prime matter particle is that it has an infacing electromagnetic field sealed by the electron shell. So in fact we cannot detect it.

 

This is gibberish. I suggest Electricity and Magnetism by Purcell, it will, perhaps, clear up some misconceptions you have about the nature of electricity and magnetism. "Inward facing field" makes little to no sense.

 

You are not correct here, Will. There is no need for prime matter to conglomerate around an electron which is negative and repulsive in charge, but plenty of reason to conglomerate around a positron which is positive and attractive. What you have to consider is simple. Does a cosmic ray hit nothing or something that's split into an electron and a positron. Clearly it's something, and in fact it can be described by its effect.

 

Negative charges don't mean repulsive. They in fact attract positive charges. Please see above reference book. Your understanding of EM seems lacking. Your "prime matter particle" is supposedly neutral, and also disappears from common perception. By what mechanism then does it interact with positrons? (but not electrons).

 

Your something or nothing fallacy has already been addressed by Tormod.

-Will

[C1ay]

Think about a geode. It grows. How. It's core is empty.

Are you trying to imply that the core of the Earth is empty?

[TeleMad]

NAdams: Think about a geode. It grows. How. It's core is empty.

 

C1ay: Are you trying to imply that the core of the Earth is empty?

 

Yes, first things first. NAdams has diverted attention away from his original claims by beginning a discussion about his ideas on prime particles. He claims the Earth is growing or expanding: he needs to explain how this occurs before anything else should be discussed.

 

We've already seen that he does NOT claim the Earth grows by accumulation of all those tons of matter spewing out of the sun every second over the past 5 billion years (though one must wonder what he was on about then).

 

And he has made statements that suggest he holds that tons and tons and tons of matter are literally being created inside the Earth, causing it to expand from within. This would violate conservation laws of physics.

 

And he has apparently said that the Earth's core is empty. Which would seem to contradict his statements about matter formation in the core, as well being extremely difficult to propose a working model for such an Earth.

 

NAdams really needs to stop diverting the topic away into his prime particle ideas and adress the key aspect of "his" "theory": what is the mechanism behind the Earth's alleged growth/expansion.

[NAdams]

I think you don't understand the physics you are talking about. Quantum electrodynamics is a beautiful, self contained theory and it explains a myriad of phenomenon. You challenge it with a theory that explains nothing other then your questionable conjecture that the earth is growing.

 

THIS IS NOT A QUESTION OR POINT. YOU DEFINE QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS IN EMOTIONAL TERMS. YOU SAY I CHALLENGE IT. I DON'T, YOU DON'T EXPLAIN HOW, NOR COULD YOU, BECAUSE QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS IS NOT A THEORY BASED CONCEPT, BUT A METHOD OF DESCRIBING AND EXPLANING THE KNOWN. FINE, SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT, OR QUESTION???

 

 

Its you who probably needs to actually read Dirac. Dirac predicted a particle with all the properties of an electron, but with opposite charge. His theory predicted, when these two particles met, they would annihilate and release a burst of photons. He also predicted these particles could fluctuate into existance, if only for a brief duration. That is antimatter in all but name.

 

ISN'T THAT EXACTLY AND PRESCISELY WHAT I SAID. PRACTICALLY WORD FOR WORD. DIRAC DIDN'T SAY ANTI-MATTER. HE IMPLIED THEY WOULD CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT. THIS IS THE VERY POINT OF MY THEORY. IF WE DON'T SURROUND AND PROTECT THE POSITRON, IT WILL, AS A POSITRON, CEASE TO BE, IN OUR SIMPLE PERCEPTION. WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT?

 

 

This is gibberish. I suggest Electricity and Magnetism by Purcell, it will, perhaps, clear up some misconceptions you have about the nature of electricity and magnetism. "Inward facing field" makes little to no sense.

 

INSULT AND BELITTLING, AND INCREDIBLY, ON THIS SUBJECT. WHY DON'T YOU CLEAR UP SOME MISCONCEPTIONS. AH, "INWARD FACING FIELD". GOOD...BUT NO QUESTION OR ARGUMENT. "JUST MAKES NO SENSE".

 

INWARD FIELD. IMAGINE A MAGNET. IT'S SOUTH (NEGATIVE) END IS A BALL INSIDE. THE BALL IS THE POSITIVE END. THE FIELD FLOWS BACK AND FORTH FROM NEGATIVE TO POSITIVE, ALL INSIDE THE BALL. AN ATOM IS SIMILAR TO THIS. INSIDE IS THE POSITIVE ATTRACTING PROTON, AROUND IT, IN A BALL, ARE THE NEGATIVE ELECTRONS. THE POSITRON INSIDE THE PROTON ATTRACTS BETWEEN THE SPACES OF ELECTRONS, BUT MILDLY. WE CALL THIS GRAVITY.

 

 

Negative charges don't mean repulsive. They in fact attract positive charges. Please see above reference book. Your understanding of EM seems lacking. Your "prime matter particle" is supposedly neutral, and also disappears from common perception. By what mechanism then does it interact with positrons? (but not electrons).

 

YOU HAVE FINALLY ATTACKED AND CONTRADICTED A FACT OF MINE. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU ARE INCORRECT. I'M SORRY. THE NEGATIVE CHARGE REPELLS (A SIMPLE ERROR BECAUSE WE SEE THE SOUTH END OF A MAGNET "SEEM TO" ATTRACT. WHAT HAPPENS IS THE NEGATIVE END RE-ALIGNS THE ELECTRONS OF THE METAL SO THAT IT BECOMES A POSITIVE MAGNET ATTRACTING THE NEGATIVE END. ELECTRONS REPELL POSITRONS, AND POSITRONS ATTRACT. THAT IS THEIR DIFFERENCE.

 

AGAIN ELECTRONS REPELL. POSITRONS ATTRACT. PRIME MATTER PARTICLES ARE MILDLY ELECTRO-MAGNETIC, BUT THE ELECTRON LAYER IS ON THE OUTSIDE, SO THE POSITIVE POSITRON DRAWS IT IN, BUT THE PRIME MATTER CORE HALTS THE APPROACH AND IT FORMS A COATING...LIKE ELECTRONS AROUND A POSITIVE NUCLEUS. THIS IS NO NEW SCIENCE. IT'S OLD AS THE HILLS.

 

Your something or nothing fallacy has already been addressed by Tormod.

-Will

 

 

NOTHING HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BY FACTS....YET.

 

YOU CAN SEE MY DEMOS AT: http://nealadams.com/nmu.html

[Erasmus00]

side note: Please depress your capslock key.

 

INSULT AND BELITTLING, AND INCREDIBLY, ON THIS SUBJECT. WHY DON'T YOU CLEAR UP SOME MISCONCEPTIONS. AH, "INWARD FACING FIELD". GOOD...BUT NO QUESTION OR ARGUMENT. "JUST MAKES NO SENSE".

 

I'm not insulting. I'm suggesting that before you attempt to create an electromagnetic theory, you study some of the basics, and provided the title of a good reference.

 

INWARD FIELD. IMAGINE A MAGNET. IT'S SOUTH (NEGATIVE) END IS A BALL INSIDE. THE BALL IS THE POSITIVE END. THE FIELD FLOWS BACK AND FORTH FROM NEGATIVE TO POSITIVE, ALL INSIDE THE BALL. AN ATOM IS SIMILAR TO THIS. INSIDE IS THE POSITIVE ATTRACTING PROTON, AROUND IT, IN A BALL, ARE THE NEGATIVE ELECTRONS. THE POSITRON INSIDE THE PROTON ATTRACTS BETWEEN THE SPACES OF ELECTRONS, BUT MILDLY. WE CALL THIS GRAVITY.

 

I don't understand your description, but consider that positrons and electrons have much stronger electric charges then magnetic moments. As such, using magnetism to describe your theory doesn't make sense. You still have given no way for a single "neutral" particle to be undetectable due to an "inward facing field."

 

 

YOU HAVE FINALLY ATTACKED AND CONTRADICTED A FACT OF MINE. UNFORTUNATELY, YOU ARE INCORRECT. I'M SORRY. THE NEGATIVE CHARGE REPELLS (A SIMPLE ERROR BECAUSE WE SEE THE SOUTH END OF A MAGNET "SEEM TO" ATTRACT. WHAT HAPPENS IS THE NEGATIVE END RE-ALIGNS THE ELECTRONS OF THE METAL SO THAT IT BECOMES A POSITIVE MAGNET ATTRACTING THE NEGATIVE END. ELECTRONS REPELL POSITRONS, AND POSITRONS ATTRACT. THAT IS THEIR DIFFERENCE.

 

You again are discussing magnetic effects, not electrical ones. In electricity, opposites attract (i.e. negatives attract positives, and positives attract negatives). Likes repel (positives repel positives, negatives repel negatives). So, negatives can indeed attract. I haven't made a "simple error" based on the south end of a magnet. Electrons do not repel positrons, they, in fact, attract positrons.

 

AGAIN ELECTRONS REPELL. POSITRONS ATTRACT. PRIME MATTER PARTICLES ARE MILDLY ELECTRO-MAGNETIC, BUT THE ELECTRON LAYER IS ON THE OUTSIDE, SO THE POSITIVE POSITRON DRAWS IT IN, BUT THE PRIME MATTER CORE HALTS THE APPROACH AND IT FORMS A COATING...LIKE ELECTRONS AROUND A POSITIVE NUCLEUS. THIS IS NO NEW SCIENCE. IT'S OLD AS THE HILLS.

 

An atom consists of electrons around a positive proton core. This does indeed create an electrically neutral atom. But if you strip off an atom, it is detectable. In your model, strip off a "prime matter" particle and its not detectable at all, because of its "inward facing field." And I beg to differ, what you are proposing is quite different from atoms. In an atom, the electrons and protons attract each other. In your model, the neutral particles are somehow (despite being neutral) attracted to a positron, which blocks the electrons from getting into the "positron core" of the atom. In your model, electrons only repel, so why don't they fly out of the atom? Again, I suggest Electricity and Magnetism by Purcell for a thorough grounding in introductory classical EM.

-Will

[Tormod]

This topic, although amusing, is drowning in circular logic and other fallacies on behalf of the author, who has started yelling at others for not understanding his brilliant ideas yet he is unable to listen to anything we say. We are now far off topic and I will close this thread in 24 hours.

[NAdams]

side note: Please depress your capslock key.

 

 

 

I'm not insulting. I'm suggesting that before you attempt to create an electromagnetic theory, you study some of the basics, and provided the title of a good reference.

 

 

 

 

I don't understand your description, but consider that positrons and electrons have much stronger electric charges then magnetic moments. As such, using magnetism to describe your theory doesn't make sense. You still have given no way for a single "neutral" particle to be undetectable due to an "inward facing field."

 

VISUALIZE THIS IF YOU CAN. THE UNIVERSE PULLS ITSELF OUTWARD WITH SPIN AND TRIES TO GET LESS EMPTY.

 

HARD CONCEPT? OKAY PULL ON TRAPPED WATER. YOU GET LITTLE BUBBLES.

 

SO THE OCEAN OF A NEUTRAL UNIVERSE FORMS BUBBLES. THE OUTER PULLING BUBBLE HAS BEEN NAMED ELECTRON. IN THE CORE IS THE POSITRON THAT PULLS THE SHELL, THE ELECTRON.

 

THE ELECTRON REPRESENTS THE UNIVERSE PULLING OUTWARD. THE CORE, THE POSITRON PULLS INWARD TO REJOIN. THE ENERGY BETWEEN THEM IS WHAT WE CALL THE ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY.

 

WE GIVE THESE EVENTS NAMES AND ATTRIBUTES.

 

IF THIS IS TRUE, AND WHO KNOWS. IT'S A THEORY. WHAT FOLLOWS. WELL, THE INSIDE, SEALED FIELD IS TOO SMALL, TOO HIDDEN FOR US TO DETECT. ATOM'S FIELDS ARE GIGANTIC AND OUTSIDE ARE PARTICLES. A FOOTBALL STADIUM SIZED FIELD FOR A BASEBALL AND INSECT PARTICLE.

 

WE SENSE ONLY THE FIELD, NOT THE ATOMS THEMSELVES. IF THE FIELD DISAPEARED, THE PARTICLES WOULD SEEM TO DISAPEAR.

 

 

 

 

You again are discussing magnetic effects, not electrical ones. In electricity, opposites attract (i.e. negatives attract positives, and positives attract negatives). Likes repel (positives repel positives, negatives repel negatives). So, negatives can indeed attract. I haven't made a "simple error" based on the south end of a magnet. Electrons do not repel positrons, they, in fact, attract positrons.

 

 

IT MAY BE THAT ELECTRONS ATTRACT POSITRONS, BUT IT IS SURE THAT POSITRONS ATTRACT ELECTRONS. ELECTRONS DON'T ATTRACT PROTONS, BUT YOU KNOW THAT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE PROTONS ARE WRAPPED IN ALL THOSE PRIME MATTER PARTICLES. OR ACTUALLY, THAT THE ELECTRONS HOLD THE ELECTRON AT BAY.

 

IN FACT, IT MAY SIMPLY BE AN ACCIDENT OF POSITION.

 

THEY ATTRACT EACH OTHER BY SOME DEFINITION. IN AN ATOM, THE PROTON ATTRACTS THE ELECTRON. ONCE THE PROTON IS BUFFERED, THE ELECTRON'S REPELLING FORCE HOLDS IT AT A DISTANCE. WHY? WHY NOT DIVE-IN AND JOIN UP WITH THE PROTON? THE ELECTRON resists. IT'S NEGATIVE.

 

NOT BECAUSE I SAY SO.

 

 

An atom consists of electrons around a positive proton core. This does indeed create an electrically neutral atom. But if you strip off an atom, it is detectable. In your model, strip off a "prime matter" particle and its not detectable at all, because of its "inward facing field." And I beg to differ, what you are proposing is quite different from atoms. In an atom, the electrons and protons attract each other. In your model, the neutral particles are somehow (despite being neutral) attracted to a positron, which blocks the electrons from getting into the "positron core" of the atom. In your model, electrons only repel, so why don't they fly out of the atom? Again, I suggest Electricity and Magnetism by Purcell for a thorough grounding in introductory classical EM.

-Will

 

 

BUT IF YOU STRIP OFF THE FIELD, WILL YOU DETECT IT?

 

AND I KNOW IT'S DIFFERENT FROM ATOMS. BUT ONE DAY THEY WILL BECOME ATOMS. THAT'S HOW WE GET A UNIVERSE.

 

THEY ARE ATTRACTED TO many PRIME MATTER PARTICLES.

 

OKAY, TRY THIS. IF I PUNCH YOU WITH A BARE FIST, I'LL BREAK YOUR JAW AND MY FIST. IF I PUT ON A BOXING GLOVE OR BETTER YET, A BEACHBALL, MY PUNCH WILL BE INEFFECTIVE.

 

ELECTRON'S DON'T FLY OUT OF AN ATOM BECAUSE THEY ARE HELD BY THE PROTONS.

 

IF THOSE PROTONS WERE THE POSITRONS, THE ELECTRONS WOULD BE DRAWN IN AND _________?

 

THIS IS MAKING SOME SORT OF SENSE, ISN'T IT?

 

CHEERS,

 

SAY GOODBYE TO TORMOD.

 

NEAL ADAMS

[C1ay]

Enough....closed