So, you built a proton out of the things we "mistake" for quarks. Great job!
Now make a charged pion and a neutral pion and a kaon and a delta++ and an omega and a sigma and a xi... maybe an eta or a rho... that will get you up to around 1970. And let us know what masses your model predicts for each. Some decay channels and rates would be great too!
I mean- you know we didn't stop discovering subatomic particles in the '30s, right?
(Claim they don't exists Then explain why it seems they do!)
What if electron and positrons were little monopole magnets?
The flow of the magnets is electricity, and spreads the range of their magnetic fields, along the line of conduction. Static electricity would be the cumulative effect of an abundance, or lack of electrons, stationary around an object. Gravity would be the slight attraction from positrons in atoms, to the electrons in the shells of other atoms. i wonder what the effects of a concentration of positrons would be? Anti-static electricity?
What is the experimental evidence for these "prime matter particles? Explain what you mean when you say "force flows", because that makes no sense given the definition of force.
These are big claims; if magnetic field lines leave "prime matter particles" without forming closed loops, then there is a non-zero magnetic flux and you are claiming to have discovered a magnetic monopole, which is something you'll have to back up with a lot of falsifiable theory and reproducible experimental evidence.
Bad? A positron is a Monopole! Prove me wrong. You can't.
2. An ATOM is a complete field. It MUST BE doesn't it? Electron into Nuclei. Nuclei to Electron. Yet some FIELD/attraction escapes,....and we call it Gravity!
@nealadamsdotcom - An electron is an electrical monopole, yes. You are claiming to have found a magnetic monopole, however, which is not the same thing. Also, now fields "flow" too? Sorry, but the way you're talking about things does not seem compatible with what the mathematical/physical concept of a force field actually represents. Could you clarify what exactly you mean by fields or forces "flowing"?
@DarknessHowls - An electron is a monopole and a positron is a monopole, tell me what's wrong with that.
You're asking me to explain something that no one understands completely. I will tell you what it seems like. It seems as though there is a flow toward a positron. It seems as though there is a flow away from an electron, and yet at the same time, the flow remains attached to the causative pole. Like gravity, magnetism, the strong force, and the electro weak force.
@nealadamsdotcom - As per the monopole question: Electric "poles" (positive and negative charge) are one type of thing. Electrical monopoles (isolated +/- charges) are found in nature. Magnetic poles (North or South charge) are another type of thing. We have only seen pairs of N/S poles in nature; never an isolated N or S pole. Thus, we say magnetic monopoles do not exist (though many physicists have a gut feeling that they should exist, and are searching very hard for them).
@DarknessHowls - To clarify. In the primitive beginning universe, there was 1 force. I don't believe it really did much of anything. It just held the universe stable. Then something, (perhaps spin), pulled at the universe, forced it apart. But in Planck-sized fields. Each field pulling to close and re-join yet being pulled apart. This pulling apart and pulling together was and remains the only force in the universe. There is 1 force not 4. The only force. The universe is stupid.
@nealadamsdotcom - What you say sounds nice, but how do you know it is true? An idea sounding good or making sense to you is not sufficient evidence of its validity. In physics, careful experiment and measurement are the arbiters of truth, not one's cleverly crafted arguments. So, what falsifiable predictions does your hypothesis make? And have they been rigorously tested by experiment?
And, I really like the expanding-Earth idea. The universe has been shown (by Hubble?) to be expanding, which follows from the Big Bang (evidenced by the uniform cosmic microwave background radiation), so (while I never considered it until your videos), it makes sense that the Earth is expanding as well (perhaps like a Silly Putty cartoon face). Question: Neal, do you think more matter is being created from within or is it that what is here is simply getting bigger?
@LastingHappiness4ALL Well, it is certainly NOT "EXPANDING". There is no such Physical process. The process we know is GROWING,... and not to be too simplistic, but GROWING is the only process of increase (Unless you add another factor, Thermal, chemical, explosive gases- yeast? heh.) We KNOW and understand GROWTH,.... to add more "STUFF" and GROW! How do we add more stuff?
Well, Pair-Production! It's the ONLY CHOICE! The only form of MATTER CREATION!
@nealadamsdotcom Pair-Production, in our little experience on the cold dead crust of this super-heated plasma and silicate ENGINE! So what,...UNSEEN,...does this ENGINE "DO"???
It stops Pairs from RE-JOINING! We can do it in colliders. It's easy! Magnetic fields!
So,..if the magnetic field going thru the Plasma outer core can HOLD Pairs apart,...what happens then?
Theoretically the Positron will attract Prime Matter Particles. and as here, make Protons!
Ok, enough for now, but please know that I'm only trying to stimulate a real discussion of potential whole-number organizations for physics and I feel like your work can help me correct/augment/clarify what I've gathered in my experience. Ultimately, I *know* that this universe can be understood as information ("it from bit") and that we are designed to comprehend and explore it fully. The ear does not make the sound, nor the eye the light, why think the brain creates the thoughts, neh?
@LastingHappiness4ALL Very profound last sentence but so obvious. Not saying that's bad just something starring one in the face and really not noticing.
3) Each of the 6 layers of the onion (the vibrational dimensions that cohabit the universal 3-space), each has the same total mass, which accounts for the effects seen by 'dark matter'. In fact, the estimate (see wikipedia) is that it contributes 83% of the matter in the universe and, well, 5 / 6 = 83.333... While the aggregate mass affects global features (eg: galaxies), we are different phases so we do not directly interfere with each other.
2d) A Photon (Y) is an E- (from our dimension) and an E- from a different one (perhaps E+) that are orbiting each other across the dimensional/vibrational barrier. The eccentricity of the orbital relationship determines its wavelength & frequency in our dimension. Something about their relationship diminishes the apparent weight in our dimension (dunno the details).
2c) Now, when a collider smashes atoms together at great velocity, it appears that such energy can actually allow a positron to temporarily become visible in our dimension, but it very quickly reverts back to its rightful dimension. I understand that intense magnetic fields can also cause the dominant shells to temporarily swap, as in a certain experiment purported to take place in Philadelphia. Also, it seems to agree with your no-annihilation understanding, Neal.
2b) The 4 energy shells of the E- are rotating relative to each other and that is a source of energy that gives rise to charge (among others, perhaps). The dimension of the dominant shell (they are not all equal but have relative proportion) determines the dimension the electron appears in. As such, a positron is just an electron whose dominant shell is in our anti-dimension. (Note that the 4 dimensions are organized as 2 pairs.)
2a) The fundamental nature of the E- (which is what, in various forms, comprises the smallest visible component of matter) is that of 4 concentric, relatively-proportional energy shells, each shell residing in one of the 4 primary concurrent (like an onion) vibrational dimensions. There are two other dimensions at the vibrational extremes making a total of 6 dimensions within our 3-space.
1) Yes, the fact that basically the weight of one N equals the weight of one P+ plus one E- makes an awfully convenient integer basis for the weights of the elementary particles and that, for the Occam's Razor fans (like me), is surely a heckuva lot simpler than the P+ weighing 1.672621777(74)E−27kg. For those who complain that the weights do not exactly match up, well, scientists doesn't always know how much error is built into their instruments / mindsets.
Neal, very nice work thinking outside the box. I'll share some understanding I may have on this topic that will almost certainly give you food for thought.
My purpose is simply for all human beings to have lasting peace & happiness. For me, happiness includes finding out how the universe works because it is vastly beautiful.
That said, my perspectives are not from *my* own knowledge but that which I've learned from elsewhere (from odd places, surely, tho :-) ...
I enjoy how you claim that your 'prime matter' particles are invisible, yet you also say that protons and neutrons, which you also claim are composed of 'prime matter' particles, are completely visible. Your thoughts?
@grandragon1 - There are 2 ways of "seeing" by it's weight, and by it's electromagnetic field. You cannot actually see a particle.
A proton, has the same EM field/charge as an electron. But it weigh 1838 times an electron. So we "see" these particles only when their magnetic fields are activated, and they "become" matter.
@nealadamsdotcom To which I refer you to electron microscopy, where we can easily see protons and neutrons in the nucleus of atoms. I also had another question; other than by your own intuition, how do you seemingly know that your positrons attract your 'prime matter' particles? Why should they even attract them if the 'prime matter' is not charged? And why doesn't the electron attract them? You shouldn't be able to answer these questions; run some experiments for me and get back to me.
@grandragon1 -" We", cannot "see protons at the nucleus of atoms", unless you will have discovered an incredible new ability of electron microscopes. If you have, send any such photos to the New York Times.
They'll run them tomorrow.
Positrons attract Prime Matter particles, because the outside bubble is the Electron half, (And the Positron is the POINT Particle at the "bubbles core" . The positron attracts the SHELL before being repulsed by the core.
@grandragon1 If the Electron is highly energized, it may over-power the electron shell and attract the positrons inside. AND collect Prime Matter Particles and build Muons and possibly Taus
@tahunu Fine. Go back to CRASHING CONTINENTS! Enjoy. My faves are the continents that crashed into North and South America that created the Rockies and Andes.
Hi Neal. I think this is an interesting theory. I wonder, what is your reasoning behind the exact number of these prime particles? And, you mention the principle of quarks as lumps of prime particles, but what makes one lump different from another when the prime particles are 'neutral' as you say?
@Vermil I begin with the weight. Then I calculate how to get this and for it to be structurally sound. I tried a thousand different structures. A 10x10x10 cube, made perfect by removing ten from each corner was the perfect structure as to retaining particles AND extend out to a fields extent. Finally, it was exactly the proper weight. Still I tried many other structures. This was perfect , logical, and exact.
Within the Proton Particles exchange force. Not unlike the shells of Electrons
@tphilippou1 If Electrons and Positrons are not stopped from annihilating (Stupid unscientific Phrase,) Then we cannot have Electrons in our Universe. IF there IS a PROCESS by which Electrons and Positrons can be stopped from annihilating each other,....then I must be correct. THIS is an undenyable conclusion!
That's how science works BUNKIE! If a deduction is correct, the conclusion described MUST BE TRUE!
MY qualifications? If I'm right! The ultimate qualifier.
1. Deduction isn't worth jack without mathematical proof. seeing as how you've no mathematical, or observational proof whatsoever, as opposed to the leading theory about quarks(there's a shitload of observational evidence. some dudes even won a nobel prize in physics for observing those bastards in a particle accelerator). I'd rather trust a theory supported by an egghead with a nobel prize to his name, than some crackpot's pseudo scientist's "deductions".
@MaxWyght Pardon ME. But my PROOF is completely mathematical in nature. AS IS my deductive PROOF! I merely have no Experimental proof. However, if the rest is true, the experimental proof will happen and be correct. That's the wonderful thing about science. When your RIGHT, it works.
Those "DUDES" were WRONG. They saw snowballs and called them snow flakes. Do you need this analogy explained to you????
MY verification is ELECTRON WEIGHT... and PROPER GEOMETRY! "OBSERVED" At Earth's CORE?
Besides, what's the deductive evidence to support exactly 920 particles of positive and 920 particles of negative charges bunched together? why not 500/500, or 1024/1024?
2. So far, you're the only "bunkie" around here. Your pathetic attempts to degrade this "discussion" to a virtual pissing war is really only showing you're just a troll...
Why? Because in last I heard, opposing charges attracted each other, not the other way around.
And yes, that's applicable to electron/positron pair production as well.
In every single case observed, the pair is produced and are annihilated almost immediately.
The only exception to the above is inside high gravity regions, such as just before a black hole's event horizon. In Locations such as that, a particle may be wrenched from the anti particle, and thrown into space, while the anti particle is absorbed by the black hole(A.K.A Hawking radiation)
If an electron came along before the proton was fully assembled, it would be attracted to the positron, and assembly would continue, forming a neutron, with the electron inside.
earth is an object influenced by our solar system..and also by its own natur!
you burn gas and oil...shure it does transform but also weight..that of course does have a gravity inpact on planet earth itself..about the timeing..that long time ago oil and gas must have been stored befor we can harvest and burn it up..that fact points to a massive loss of weight on the surface like trees, mammals ect. water was set chemicaly free in size. (moonphase)
I am skeptical about earth growing and do believe it must be growing somewhat from its earlier years with the amount of space junk being thrown at the earth every year, problem is people take this opportunity to try and imbed it with personal agenda's like creationism, but this is what I think, plate tectonics is true, however, I also believe that the mass is increasing, which is increasing the earth's core and allowing more surface area for plate tectonics to move about?
@MathDoobler Yeah WTF is this Sh?! Get the F out here Frankenstein. You have a lot to answer for. How dare you meddle in things that aren't your business/ How DARE you deal with the Magnet-ological sciences you GIMP!
Right Nerfi Look at him using UNNATURAL magnetics (As if THAT controlled anything,... and TRIES TO CREATE a structure that will never work together. See, See. He's using a TRICK, as if those would be a PERFECT STRUCTURE. HAH! Hissssssss.
@nealadamsdotcom I thought I already responded to this, but I guess not. In the video you say that there is a single positron in the centre. Are you suggesting that the particle you're replicating is both an awkward polyhedron (not spherical, unlike everything else in the universe) and asymmetrical? Or can you explain the necessity of eight magnets in the centre with only one positron?
I'm not condemning you, just trying to understand.
Addendum; I believe the universe IS polar, and only appears to be planar because of how small we are. It's the way our brains look at the universe, which doesn't mean that that's the way it is. Observation is inherently faulty because we are not omniscient. I know, it's a little out there, but that's where good ideas originate.
very good point i was just looking at a post someone put on my facebook page about the earth expansion theory which i was dubious about straight away as we do know a good deal about how our planet works and a lot of it is common sensical and we use impirical data thats how we understand the world we live in ! As to the Universe we and all its constituant parts are more intertwined and connected in more ways then we can comprehend right now from the atom to the biggest black holes . . .
Clever model, but I have one major issue with it. If you have a 10x10x10 cube, then there IS no individual magnet acting as the centre. You have a box of eight (coordinates (x,y,z); (5,5,5), (5,6,5), (5,6,6), (5,5,6), (6,5,5), (6,5,6), (6,6,6) and (6,6,5). If I had 1000 of those little ball-bearings to play with, I'd help you construct a more accurate model (should be more spherical as well, remember your fractals!). Perhaps using a polar coordinate plane instead of planar?
@PinkProgram LOOK,.. If you have a specific question or point, ASK/MAKE it. Don't just type any fuking thing that comes into your mind. You have NO idea the details of the things you read, because YOU were fed new terminolgy, that you don't understand. I break it down to common ENGLISH and discuss it.
Incorrect. The structure looks as much like a sphere as 1,000 minus 80 CAN and still retain its integrity and support surfaces,...ALSO, PARTICLES(ATOMS) are NOT spheres BUT CRYSTALINE in form,...the most stable and compacted is atoms in which the outer layer is a cube,..or eight cornered. IRON, for example.
There is one discrepancie here, the structure would have to look like a sphere, and he fails when hetrieds to explain neutrons "one electron tucked away", Blah,
but makes sense for anymatter atleast, switch the places for positron and neutron.
And can any predictions be made with this alternative to the standard model? something comparable but more accurate than the predictions made by our current understanding of quantum physics would suffice.
@reubz11 Sure. !.All Matter is made of Electrons, Positrons and the MOTHER whole neutral-seeming Pre/Prime EM field.
2.Spliting apart Electrons and Positrons gives us/reveals to us Positive And Negative field,... which is the ONLY FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE. Therefor it IS GRAVITY, strong and weak force.
3. There's no such thing as a QUARK. 4. and no such thing as Asymmetry!
The mass of all the planets together is about 1% of the mass of the sun.
The core of each planet is about 1/10th the mass of its' planet.
100 times 10 is 1000. So would that make the total mass of the sun about 1000 to 1 times the total mass of all the cores, of all the orbiting planets? or is it closer to 1838:1?! Could the sun and solar system be a scaled up atom?
The core of each planet and moon being like electrons,
@PinkProgram Of course I do. If the universe began by producing Hydrogen from Pair-Production, which then collected into our first suns, how do you think the universe got neutrons to create/assemble all the other atoms?
@PinkProgram Then you will have to call the Physicists who commonly, in the lab, remove an Electron from the Neutron and a Proton remains, and adds an Electron to a Proton and get a Neutron.
@nealadamsdotcom a free neutron rapidly decays into a proton because neutrons by themselves are unstable. If you remove an electron from hydrogen you get Hydron or H+ which is commonly referred to as a proton. If you add an electron to H+ you get hydrogen. A neutron has a neutral charge and free neutrons have a lifespan of 15 minutes. Free neutrons are produced by nuclear fission or fusion. A free neutron is not a hydrogen atom. Not even close.
@PinkProgram All you are doing is proving my point. Free Neutrons do not exist. There needs to be Hydrogen atoms heated/energized/expanded in a sunlike object to allow the Hydrogen's Electron to enter the Proton to become a Neutron.
Of course Neutrons are Hydrogen Atoms. There's nothing else for them to be made of.
No, the Universe wasn't gathered in an infititesimal point. There's nothing in science or nature to suggest any such Science Fictional thing,...and that's what we have to go to. It makes much more sense to look at things we know and assume these processes ar similar, but not exactly the same as the beginning processes.
To get an "EMPTY" Universe, you can assume simple stages to end in an ocean of something from which matter is MADE. There we are stopped because we THINK the universe is EMPTY
@thechessstick Math doesn't suggest that the universe came from nothing. It came from something. In fact all of the matter of the universe was accumulated in an infinitesimal point.
That's something from something.
Also the area outside the point would have still contained energy. You CAN in fact create matter from energy, and vice versa. It does that all the time, in fact.
@LrdAsmodeous Please, we are not 5-year-olds here. If all of the matter was at one small infinitesimal point then that one point with all of the matter was the universe. So, then where did that universe come from? It doesn't matter what size the universe is. Enormous or infinitesimal it still had to have a beginning and it had to come from somewhere. It had to be caused. This includes, space, time, matter, energy, and the laws which govern it.
@amathematicalmontage You know according to math the universe cannot exist unless God created it. Mathematically you cannot get something from nothing. So it had to take a miracle. Therefore one can mathematically prove that God the Creator exists. Thank you...
@thechessstick What the fuck do you mean you mathematically can't get something from nothing? Check this out: x[n+1] = x[n] + 1 with x[0] = 0. There I just defined a system where the next state depends on the previous, starting from nothing, it gives you something. Shit, I can't believe you posted that in response to my comment about talking out your ass. Math doesn't say anything, it's a tool, and when it's abstractions are applied to measurements it can describe nature with scary accuracy.
@amathematicalmontage Sorry, that is some bad math there. zero times anything is zero. zero plus anything = that anything. zero is the additive identity not the multiplicative identity.
@thechessstick There is no bad math there. It's called a recurrence relation. Please google it. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. I study mathematical physics.
@amathematicalmontage If you study math then you should have had some classes in logic and reason as well. Do you know that one can prove that there was a beginning to time by using reason? And I stand by my statement about the "big bang". That is not a theory it is a lie for children.
@thechessstick Furthermore you can not prove whether god exists or not. It can proven though, that either a god of infinite form (all knowning) exists or we have free will. Because those are two mutually exclusive things. Logically you can't say god knows everything but doesn't know the outcome of all the events of our lives, meaning it knows before we are born whether we are going to heaven or hell, and has infact picked that for us by the very act of creation.
@amathematicalmontage Yes, God of course knows that but it is still a free choice. You can either believe in Jesus or not. What have you decided to do about Jesus?
@DorchestraBiscuit - For people like you, I highly recommend, the cat fart, and the oriental breast massage videos. There's also one on crybabies with sensitive skin. Perhaps that will make up for any lose you may feel, snookums. Then you can go tell mommy about your hurt feelings.
Question. What stops the prime matter particle from imploding on itself? How massive are these particles? Considering their size, the Weak Coulomb force is unlikely to have any effect, is this a different type of attraction/repulsion?
Also this seems to completely go against the standard model. You seem to think that a proton has a positron at the centre, this is not the case, a proton is composed of two up quarks and one down quark. Have I misunderstood you?
@jonnydarkmusic The universe is PULLING OUTWARD, making these little bubbles of less-than-nothing . This is the "THING"we call EM. Haven't you always wondered what EM actually IS? EM is the outpulling force of the universe (From "SPIN"? I don't know. )And the IN-PULLING force that seeks to keep/hold the universe together. This is the only basic force in the universe. No MAGIC, just out-pulling and in-pulling. on force lines. EM.
@nealadamsdotcom Magnetism is when it is allowed to flow in a particular direction. It is constantly moving in all direction but but certain elements such as iron allow it to flow in a particular direction. Gravitational attraction is caused by this "thing" being displaced by matter and a "vacuum" is created. Gravitational attraction between to objects is caused by a "shadow" being cast on each other thus creating a sort of void between the 2 objects which causes a "falling" together.
why do folk need to be harsh with the other comments. Someone has taken the time to explain quantum physics for free. Then broke it down so an idiot can understand it.
@bluenose193 - Astute, avuncular, and absolutely 100% true. Finding a brilliant mind like yours on the internet is a once in a lifetime experience. You are beyond brilliant and knowledgeable. I just simply cannot find the words. Kudos to you deep thinker.
So, you built a proton out of the things we "mistake" for quarks. Great job!
Now make a charged pion and a neutral pion and a kaon and a delta++ and an omega and a sigma and a xi... maybe an eta or a rho... that will get you up to around 1970. And let us know what masses your model predicts for each. Some decay channels and rates would be great too!
I mean- you know we didn't stop discovering subatomic particles in the '30s, right?
(Claim they don't exists Then explain why it seems they do!)
What if electron and positrons were little monopole magnets?
The flow of the magnets is electricity, and spreads the range of their magnetic fields, along the line of conduction. Static electricity would be the cumulative effect of an abundance, or lack of electrons, stationary around an object. Gravity would be the slight attraction from positrons in atoms, to the electrons in the shells of other atoms. i wonder what the effects of a concentration of positrons would be? Anti-static electricity?
What is the experimental evidence for these "prime matter particles? Explain what you mean when you say "force flows", because that makes no sense given the definition of force.
These are big claims; if magnetic field lines leave "prime matter particles" without forming closed loops, then there is a non-zero magnetic flux and you are claiming to have discovered a magnetic monopole, which is something you'll have to back up with a lot of falsifiable theory and reproducible experimental evidence.
@DarknessHowls You think so? An Electron is a Monopole.
Bad? A positron is a Monopole! Prove me wrong. You can't.
2. An ATOM is a complete field. It MUST BE doesn't it? Electron into Nuclei. Nuclei to Electron. Yet some FIELD/attraction escapes,....and we call it Gravity!
@nealadamsdotcom - An electron is an electrical monopole, yes. You are claiming to have found a magnetic monopole, however, which is not the same thing. Also, now fields "flow" too? Sorry, but the way you're talking about things does not seem compatible with what the mathematical/physical concept of a force field actually represents. Could you clarify what exactly you mean by fields or forces "flowing"?
@DarknessHowls - An electron is a monopole and a positron is a monopole, tell me what's wrong with that.
You're asking me to explain something that no one understands completely. I will tell you what it seems like. It seems as though there is a flow toward a positron. It seems as though there is a flow away from an electron, and yet at the same time, the flow remains attached to the causative pole. Like gravity, magnetism, the strong force, and the electro weak force.
@nealadamsdotcom - As per the monopole question: Electric "poles" (positive and negative charge) are one type of thing. Electrical monopoles (isolated +/- charges) are found in nature. Magnetic poles (North or South charge) are another type of thing. We have only seen pairs of N/S poles in nature; never an isolated N or S pole. Thus, we say magnetic monopoles do not exist (though many physicists have a gut feeling that they should exist, and are searching very hard for them).
@DarknessHowls - To clarify. In the primitive beginning universe, there was 1 force. I don't believe it really did much of anything. It just held the universe stable. Then something, (perhaps spin), pulled at the universe, forced it apart. But in Planck-sized fields. Each field pulling to close and re-join yet being pulled apart. This pulling apart and pulling together was and remains the only force in the universe. There is 1 force not 4. The only force. The universe is stupid.
@nealadamsdotcom - What you say sounds nice, but how do you know it is true? An idea sounding good or making sense to you is not sufficient evidence of its validity. In physics, careful experiment and measurement are the arbiters of truth, not one's cleverly crafted arguments. So, what falsifiable predictions does your hypothesis make? And have they been rigorously tested by experiment?
And, I really like the expanding-Earth idea. The universe has been shown (by Hubble?) to be expanding, which follows from the Big Bang (evidenced by the uniform cosmic microwave background radiation), so (while I never considered it until your videos), it makes sense that the Earth is expanding as well (perhaps like a Silly Putty cartoon face). Question: Neal, do you think more matter is being created from within or is it that what is here is simply getting bigger?
@LastingHappiness4ALL Well, it is certainly NOT "EXPANDING". There is no such Physical process. The process we know is GROWING,... and not to be too simplistic, but GROWING is the only process of increase (Unless you add another factor, Thermal, chemical, explosive gases- yeast? heh.) We KNOW and understand GROWTH,.... to add more "STUFF" and GROW! How do we add more stuff?
Well, Pair-Production! It's the ONLY CHOICE! The only form of MATTER CREATION!
@nealadamsdotcom Pair-Production, in our little experience on the cold dead crust of this super-heated plasma and silicate ENGINE! So what,...UNSEEN,...does this ENGINE "DO"???
It stops Pairs from RE-JOINING! We can do it in colliders. It's easy! Magnetic fields!
So,..if the magnetic field going thru the Plasma outer core can HOLD Pairs apart,...what happens then?
Theoretically the Positron will attract Prime Matter Particles. and as here, make Protons!
Ok, enough for now, but please know that I'm only trying to stimulate a real discussion of potential whole-number organizations for physics and I feel like your work can help me correct/augment/clarify what I've gathered in my experience. Ultimately, I *know* that this universe can be understood as information ("it from bit") and that we are designed to comprehend and explore it fully. The ear does not make the sound, nor the eye the light, why think the brain creates the thoughts, neh?
@LastingHappiness4ALL Very profound last sentence but so obvious. Not saying that's bad just something starring one in the face and really not noticing.
3) Each of the 6 layers of the onion (the vibrational dimensions that cohabit the universal 3-space), each has the same total mass, which accounts for the effects seen by 'dark matter'. In fact, the estimate (see wikipedia) is that it contributes 83% of the matter in the universe and, well, 5 / 6 = 83.333... While the aggregate mass affects global features (eg: galaxies), we are different phases so we do not directly interfere with each other.
2d) A Photon (Y) is an E- (from our dimension) and an E- from a different one (perhaps E+) that are orbiting each other across the dimensional/vibrational barrier. The eccentricity of the orbital relationship determines its wavelength & frequency in our dimension. Something about their relationship diminishes the apparent weight in our dimension (dunno the details).
2c) Now, when a collider smashes atoms together at great velocity, it appears that such energy can actually allow a positron to temporarily become visible in our dimension, but it very quickly reverts back to its rightful dimension. I understand that intense magnetic fields can also cause the dominant shells to temporarily swap, as in a certain experiment purported to take place in Philadelphia. Also, it seems to agree with your no-annihilation understanding, Neal.
2b) The 4 energy shells of the E- are rotating relative to each other and that is a source of energy that gives rise to charge (among others, perhaps). The dimension of the dominant shell (they are not all equal but have relative proportion) determines the dimension the electron appears in. As such, a positron is just an electron whose dominant shell is in our anti-dimension. (Note that the 4 dimensions are organized as 2 pairs.)
2a) The fundamental nature of the E- (which is what, in various forms, comprises the smallest visible component of matter) is that of 4 concentric, relatively-proportional energy shells, each shell residing in one of the 4 primary concurrent (like an onion) vibrational dimensions. There are two other dimensions at the vibrational extremes making a total of 6 dimensions within our 3-space.
1) Yes, the fact that basically the weight of one N equals the weight of one P+ plus one E- makes an awfully convenient integer basis for the weights of the elementary particles and that, for the Occam's Razor fans (like me), is surely a heckuva lot simpler than the P+ weighing 1.672621777(74)E−27kg. For those who complain that the weights do not exactly match up, well, scientists doesn't always know how much error is built into their instruments / mindsets.
Neal, very nice work thinking outside the box. I'll share some understanding I may have on this topic that will almost certainly give you food for thought.
My purpose is simply for all human beings to have lasting peace & happiness. For me, happiness includes finding out how the universe works because it is vastly beautiful.
That said, my perspectives are not from *my* own knowledge but that which I've learned from elsewhere (from odd places, surely, tho :-) ...
I enjoy how you claim that your 'prime matter' particles are invisible, yet you also say that protons and neutrons, which you also claim are composed of 'prime matter' particles, are completely visible. Your thoughts?
@grandragon1 - There are 2 ways of "seeing" by it's weight, and by it's electromagnetic field. You cannot actually see a particle.
A proton, has the same EM field/charge as an electron. But it weigh 1838 times an electron. So we "see" these particles only when their magnetic fields are activated, and they "become" matter.
@nealadamsdotcom To which I refer you to electron microscopy, where we can easily see protons and neutrons in the nucleus of atoms. I also had another question; other than by your own intuition, how do you seemingly know that your positrons attract your 'prime matter' particles? Why should they even attract them if the 'prime matter' is not charged? And why doesn't the electron attract them? You shouldn't be able to answer these questions; run some experiments for me and get back to me.
@grandragon1 -" We", cannot "see protons at the nucleus of atoms", unless you will have discovered an incredible new ability of electron microscopes. If you have, send any such photos to the New York Times.
They'll run them tomorrow.
Positrons attract Prime Matter particles, because the outside bubble is the Electron half, (And the Positron is the POINT Particle at the "bubbles core" . The positron attracts the SHELL before being repulsed by the core.
@grandragon1 If the Electron is highly energized, it may over-power the electron shell and attract the positrons inside. AND collect Prime Matter Particles and build Muons and possibly Taus
@tahunu Fine. Go back to CRASHING CONTINENTS! Enjoy. My faves are the continents that crashed into North and South America that created the Rockies and Andes.
Hi Neal. I think this is an interesting theory. I wonder, what is your reasoning behind the exact number of these prime particles? And, you mention the principle of quarks as lumps of prime particles, but what makes one lump different from another when the prime particles are 'neutral' as you say?
@Vermil I begin with the weight. Then I calculate how to get this and for it to be structurally sound. I tried a thousand different structures. A 10x10x10 cube, made perfect by removing ten from each corner was the perfect structure as to retaining particles AND extend out to a fields extent. Finally, it was exactly the proper weight. Still I tried many other structures. This was perfect , logical, and exact.
Within the Proton Particles exchange force. Not unlike the shells of Electrons
@tphilippou1 If Electrons and Positrons are not stopped from annihilating (Stupid unscientific Phrase,) Then we cannot have Electrons in our Universe. IF there IS a PROCESS by which Electrons and Positrons can be stopped from annihilating each other,....then I must be correct. THIS is an undenyable conclusion!
That's how science works BUNKIE! If a deduction is correct, the conclusion described MUST BE TRUE!
MY qualifications? If I'm right! The ultimate qualifier.
1. Deduction isn't worth jack without mathematical proof. seeing as how you've no mathematical, or observational proof whatsoever, as opposed to the leading theory about quarks(there's a shitload of observational evidence. some dudes even won a nobel prize in physics for observing those bastards in a particle accelerator). I'd rather trust a theory supported by an egghead with a nobel prize to his name, than some crackpot's pseudo scientist's "deductions".
@MaxWyght Pardon ME. But my PROOF is completely mathematical in nature. AS IS my deductive PROOF! I merely have no Experimental proof. However, if the rest is true, the experimental proof will happen and be correct. That's the wonderful thing about science. When your RIGHT, it works.
Those "DUDES" were WRONG. They saw snowballs and called them snow flakes. Do you need this analogy explained to you????
MY verification is ELECTRON WEIGHT... and PROPER GEOMETRY! "OBSERVED" At Earth's CORE?
Besides, what's the deductive evidence to support exactly 920 particles of positive and 920 particles of negative charges bunched together? why not 500/500, or 1024/1024?
2. So far, you're the only "bunkie" around here. Your pathetic attempts to degrade this "discussion" to a virtual pissing war is really only showing you're just a troll...
Why? Because in last I heard, opposing charges attracted each other, not the other way around.
And yes, that's applicable to electron/positron pair production as well.
In every single case observed, the pair is produced and are annihilated almost immediately.
The only exception to the above is inside high gravity regions, such as just before a black hole's event horizon. In Locations such as that, a particle may be wrenched from the anti particle, and thrown into space, while the anti particle is absorbed by the black hole(A.K.A Hawking radiation)
If an electron came along before the proton was fully assembled, it would be attracted to the positron, and assembly would continue, forming a neutron, with the electron inside.
earth is an object influenced by our solar system..and also by its own natur!
you burn gas and oil...shure it does transform but also weight..that of course does have a gravity inpact on planet earth itself..about the timeing..that long time ago oil and gas must have been stored befor we can harvest and burn it up..that fact points to a massive loss of weight on the surface like trees, mammals ect. water was set chemicaly free in size. (moonphase)
I am skeptical about earth growing and do believe it must be growing somewhat from its earlier years with the amount of space junk being thrown at the earth every year, problem is people take this opportunity to try and imbed it with personal agenda's like creationism, but this is what I think, plate tectonics is true, however, I also believe that the mass is increasing, which is increasing the earth's core and allowing more surface area for plate tectonics to move about?
@MathDoobler Yeah WTF is this Sh?! Get the F out here Frankenstein. You have a lot to answer for. How dare you meddle in things that aren't your business/ How DARE you deal with the Magnet-ological sciences you GIMP!
Right Nerfi Look at him using UNNATURAL magnetics (As if THAT controlled anything,... and TRIES TO CREATE a structure that will never work together. See, See. He's using a TRICK, as if those would be a PERFECT STRUCTURE. HAH! Hissssssss.
@nealadamsdotcom I thought I already responded to this, but I guess not. In the video you say that there is a single positron in the centre. Are you suggesting that the particle you're replicating is both an awkward polyhedron (not spherical, unlike everything else in the universe) and asymmetrical? Or can you explain the necessity of eight magnets in the centre with only one positron?
I'm not condemning you, just trying to understand.
So, you built a proton out of the things we "mistake" for quarks. Great job!
Now make a charged pion and a neutral pion and a kaon and a delta++ and an omega and a sigma and a xi... maybe an eta or a rho... that will get you up to around 1970. And let us know what masses your model predicts for each. Some decay channels and rates would be great too!
I mean- you know we didn't stop discovering subatomic particles in the '30s, right?
(Claim they don't exists Then explain why it seems they do!)
doctordave 1 day ago
Please explain what you mean when you say the "positive and negative forces flow from the inside to the outside..."
Because, the way every physicist uses and understands those words...
1) Positive and negative are labels for types of charge. They are not types of force.
2) Force is a word used to describe an interaction between two bodies that can cause them to accelerate. A force is not something that can "flow".
Can you please define these terms for us?
doctordave 1 day ago
On cosmic rays and pair production;
thunder storms are known to produce gamma rays.
The idea is, that clouds are like fuel cells, combining hydrogen and oxygen, and producing rain and lightning.
More evidence has just been discovered, that gamma rays may also be formed in just a hydrogen/oxygen reaction!
(Neal, you got to see this!)
watch?v=jC_-6XgeqJo
rongrite 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from nealadamsdotcom
aarrrgh my head exploded, did not get any of that!
sheepneck69 2 weeks ago
@sheepneck69 Watch my other dozen videos
nealadamsdotcom 2 weeks ago
What if electron and positrons were little monopole magnets?
The flow of the magnets is electricity, and spreads the range of their magnetic fields, along the line of conduction. Static electricity would be the cumulative effect of an abundance, or lack of electrons, stationary around an object. Gravity would be the slight attraction from positrons in atoms, to the electrons in the shells of other atoms. i wonder what the effects of a concentration of positrons would be? Anti-static electricity?
rongrite 2 weeks ago
What is the experimental evidence for these "prime matter particles? Explain what you mean when you say "force flows", because that makes no sense given the definition of force.
These are big claims; if magnetic field lines leave "prime matter particles" without forming closed loops, then there is a non-zero magnetic flux and you are claiming to have discovered a magnetic monopole, which is something you'll have to back up with a lot of falsifiable theory and reproducible experimental evidence.
DarknessHowls 1 month ago
@DarknessHowls You think so? An Electron is a Monopole.
Bad? A positron is a Monopole! Prove me wrong. You can't.
2. An ATOM is a complete field. It MUST BE doesn't it? Electron into Nuclei. Nuclei to Electron. Yet some FIELD/attraction escapes,....and we call it Gravity!
Field "flows".?!
nealadamsdotcom 1 month ago
@nealadamsdotcom - An electron is an electrical monopole, yes. You are claiming to have found a magnetic monopole, however, which is not the same thing. Also, now fields "flow" too? Sorry, but the way you're talking about things does not seem compatible with what the mathematical/physical concept of a force field actually represents. Could you clarify what exactly you mean by fields or forces "flowing"?
DarknessHowls 1 month ago
@DarknessHowls - An electron is a monopole and a positron is a monopole, tell me what's wrong with that.
You're asking me to explain something that no one understands completely. I will tell you what it seems like. It seems as though there is a flow toward a positron. It seems as though there is a flow away from an electron, and yet at the same time, the flow remains attached to the causative pole. Like gravity, magnetism, the strong force, and the electro weak force.
nealadamsdotcom 1 month ago
@nealadamsdotcom - As per the monopole question: Electric "poles" (positive and negative charge) are one type of thing. Electrical monopoles (isolated +/- charges) are found in nature. Magnetic poles (North or South charge) are another type of thing. We have only seen pairs of N/S poles in nature; never an isolated N or S pole. Thus, we say magnetic monopoles do not exist (though many physicists have a gut feeling that they should exist, and are searching very hard for them).
DarknessHowls 1 month ago
@DarknessHowls - To clarify. In the primitive beginning universe, there was 1 force. I don't believe it really did much of anything. It just held the universe stable. Then something, (perhaps spin), pulled at the universe, forced it apart. But in Planck-sized fields. Each field pulling to close and re-join yet being pulled apart. This pulling apart and pulling together was and remains the only force in the universe. There is 1 force not 4. The only force. The universe is stupid.
nealadamsdotcom 1 month ago
@nealadamsdotcom - What you say sounds nice, but how do you know it is true? An idea sounding good or making sense to you is not sufficient evidence of its validity. In physics, careful experiment and measurement are the arbiters of truth, not one's cleverly crafted arguments. So, what falsifiable predictions does your hypothesis make? And have they been rigorously tested by experiment?
DarknessHowls 1 month ago
And, I really like the expanding-Earth idea. The universe has been shown (by Hubble?) to be expanding, which follows from the Big Bang (evidenced by the uniform cosmic microwave background radiation), so (while I never considered it until your videos), it makes sense that the Earth is expanding as well (perhaps like a Silly Putty cartoon face). Question: Neal, do you think more matter is being created from within or is it that what is here is simply getting bigger?
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
@LastingHappiness4ALL Well, it is certainly NOT "EXPANDING". There is no such Physical process. The process we know is GROWING,... and not to be too simplistic, but GROWING is the only process of increase (Unless you add another factor, Thermal, chemical, explosive gases- yeast? heh.) We KNOW and understand GROWTH,.... to add more "STUFF" and GROW! How do we add more stuff?
Well, Pair-Production! It's the ONLY CHOICE! The only form of MATTER CREATION!
nealadamsdotcom 1 month ago
@nealadamsdotcom Pair-Production, in our little experience on the cold dead crust of this super-heated plasma and silicate ENGINE! So what,...UNSEEN,...does this ENGINE "DO"???
It stops Pairs from RE-JOINING! We can do it in colliders. It's easy! Magnetic fields!
So,..if the magnetic field going thru the Plasma outer core can HOLD Pairs apart,...what happens then?
Theoretically the Positron will attract Prime Matter Particles. and as here, make Protons!
Then- TA-DAAA
nealadamsdotcom 1 month ago
Ok, enough for now, but please know that I'm only trying to stimulate a real discussion of potential whole-number organizations for physics and I feel like your work can help me correct/augment/clarify what I've gathered in my experience. Ultimately, I *know* that this universe can be understood as information ("it from bit") and that we are designed to comprehend and explore it fully. The ear does not make the sound, nor the eye the light, why think the brain creates the thoughts, neh?
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
@LastingHappiness4ALL Very profound last sentence but so obvious. Not saying that's bad just something starring one in the face and really not noticing.
B00MK 1 month ago
3) Each of the 6 layers of the onion (the vibrational dimensions that cohabit the universal 3-space), each has the same total mass, which accounts for the effects seen by 'dark matter'. In fact, the estimate (see wikipedia) is that it contributes 83% of the matter in the universe and, well, 5 / 6 = 83.333... While the aggregate mass affects global features (eg: galaxies), we are different phases so we do not directly interfere with each other.
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
2d) A Photon (Y) is an E- (from our dimension) and an E- from a different one (perhaps E+) that are orbiting each other across the dimensional/vibrational barrier. The eccentricity of the orbital relationship determines its wavelength & frequency in our dimension. Something about their relationship diminishes the apparent weight in our dimension (dunno the details).
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
2c) Now, when a collider smashes atoms together at great velocity, it appears that such energy can actually allow a positron to temporarily become visible in our dimension, but it very quickly reverts back to its rightful dimension. I understand that intense magnetic fields can also cause the dominant shells to temporarily swap, as in a certain experiment purported to take place in Philadelphia. Also, it seems to agree with your no-annihilation understanding, Neal.
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
2b) The 4 energy shells of the E- are rotating relative to each other and that is a source of energy that gives rise to charge (among others, perhaps). The dimension of the dominant shell (they are not all equal but have relative proportion) determines the dimension the electron appears in. As such, a positron is just an electron whose dominant shell is in our anti-dimension. (Note that the 4 dimensions are organized as 2 pairs.)
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
2a) The fundamental nature of the E- (which is what, in various forms, comprises the smallest visible component of matter) is that of 4 concentric, relatively-proportional energy shells, each shell residing in one of the 4 primary concurrent (like an onion) vibrational dimensions. There are two other dimensions at the vibrational extremes making a total of 6 dimensions within our 3-space.
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
1) Yes, the fact that basically the weight of one N equals the weight of one P+ plus one E- makes an awfully convenient integer basis for the weights of the elementary particles and that, for the Occam's Razor fans (like me), is surely a heckuva lot simpler than the P+ weighing 1.672621777(74)E−27kg. For those who complain that the weights do not exactly match up, well, scientists doesn't always know how much error is built into their instruments / mindsets.
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
Neal, very nice work thinking outside the box. I'll share some understanding I may have on this topic that will almost certainly give you food for thought.
My purpose is simply for all human beings to have lasting peace & happiness. For me, happiness includes finding out how the universe works because it is vastly beautiful.
That said, my perspectives are not from *my* own knowledge but that which I've learned from elsewhere (from odd places, surely, tho :-) ...
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
Nice trick with magnets. Show me the proof of your theory in an experiment, and have it peer reviewed. Then I would believe you.
AdeptusVideos 1 month ago
@nealadamsdotcom and twice the 919 is 1,838 plus the "Positive" charge of the Positron inside.
nealadamsdotcom 2 months ago
Quarks cannot be clumps of prime matter particles because they have fractional charges. Your theory does not allow for fractional charges. Science.
whendiditfall 2 months ago
I enjoy how you claim that your 'prime matter' particles are invisible, yet you also say that protons and neutrons, which you also claim are composed of 'prime matter' particles, are completely visible. Your thoughts?
grandragon1 4 months ago
@grandragon1 - There are 2 ways of "seeing" by it's weight, and by it's electromagnetic field. You cannot actually see a particle.
A proton, has the same EM field/charge as an electron. But it weigh 1838 times an electron. So we "see" these particles only when their magnetic fields are activated, and they "become" matter.
nealadamsdotcom 4 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom To which I refer you to electron microscopy, where we can easily see protons and neutrons in the nucleus of atoms. I also had another question; other than by your own intuition, how do you seemingly know that your positrons attract your 'prime matter' particles? Why should they even attract them if the 'prime matter' is not charged? And why doesn't the electron attract them? You shouldn't be able to answer these questions; run some experiments for me and get back to me.
grandragon1 4 months ago
@grandragon1 -" We", cannot "see protons at the nucleus of atoms", unless you will have discovered an incredible new ability of electron microscopes. If you have, send any such photos to the New York Times.
They'll run them tomorrow.
Positrons attract Prime Matter particles, because the outside bubble is the Electron half, (And the Positron is the POINT Particle at the "bubbles core" . The positron attracts the SHELL before being repulsed by the core.
nealadamsdotcom 4 months ago
@grandragon1 If the Electron is highly energized, it may over-power the electron shell and attract the positrons inside. AND collect Prime Matter Particles and build Muons and possibly Taus
nealadamsdotcom 4 months ago
@grandragon1 I suggest that if you don't wish to seem stupid, don't say stupid things.
nealadamsdotcom 4 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Actually a proton weighs 1,836.15267245 times as much as an electron.
whendiditfall 2 months ago
@tahunu Fine. Go back to CRASHING CONTINENTS! Enjoy. My faves are the continents that crashed into North and South America that created the Rockies and Andes.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
Hi Neal. I think this is an interesting theory. I wonder, what is your reasoning behind the exact number of these prime particles? And, you mention the principle of quarks as lumps of prime particles, but what makes one lump different from another when the prime particles are 'neutral' as you say?
Vermilicious 5 months ago
@Vermil I begin with the weight. Then I calculate how to get this and for it to be structurally sound. I tried a thousand different structures. A 10x10x10 cube, made perfect by removing ten from each corner was the perfect structure as to retaining particles AND extend out to a fields extent. Finally, it was exactly the proper weight. Still I tried many other structures. This was perfect , logical, and exact.
Within the Proton Particles exchange force. Not unlike the shells of Electrons
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
Comment removed
micometer 5 months ago
@MaxWyght I guess that's why we used to call it Electron Weight,...the STANDARD.
Max, DON'T Fuk with me with this bull! Look this stuff up BEFORE YOU POST, or I'm GONNA BLOCK YOU. I promise.
LOOK AT THE GEOMETRY of the final piece in the video. THINK!
MY MATH is simple and "IN FRONT" and GIVEN. Pay attention to the video!
I'm already a hero. Ain't no Thaing. Why the hell don't you ask some serious and important questions? I don't get it?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
lol Best reply ever. Epic even
3rdEYEbeHolder 5 months ago
@tphilippou1 If Electrons and Positrons are not stopped from annihilating (Stupid unscientific Phrase,) Then we cannot have Electrons in our Universe. IF there IS a PROCESS by which Electrons and Positrons can be stopped from annihilating each other,....then I must be correct. THIS is an undenyable conclusion!
That's how science works BUNKIE! If a deduction is correct, the conclusion described MUST BE TRUE!
MY qualifications? If I'm right! The ultimate qualifier.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@tphilippou1 .. what qualifications do you have to rebut the theory?
MrSchpankme 6 months ago
@tphilippou1 1. It's called DEDUCTION! Lot's of deductive evidence.
2.Well, they're flying away from each other pretty damn fast, bunkie.
nealadamsdotcom 7 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
1. Deduction isn't worth jack without mathematical proof. seeing as how you've no mathematical, or observational proof whatsoever, as opposed to the leading theory about quarks(there's a shitload of observational evidence. some dudes even won a nobel prize in physics for observing those bastards in a particle accelerator). I'd rather trust a theory supported by an egghead with a nobel prize to his name, than some crackpot's pseudo scientist's "deductions".
MaxWyght 5 months ago
@MaxWyght Pardon ME. But my PROOF is completely mathematical in nature. AS IS my deductive PROOF! I merely have no Experimental proof. However, if the rest is true, the experimental proof will happen and be correct. That's the wonderful thing about science. When your RIGHT, it works.
Those "DUDES" were WRONG. They saw snowballs and called them snow flakes. Do you need this analogy explained to you????
MY verification is ELECTRON WEIGHT... and PROPER GEOMETRY! "OBSERVED" At Earth's CORE?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
Besides, what's the deductive evidence to support exactly 920 particles of positive and 920 particles of negative charges bunched together? why not 500/500, or 1024/1024?
2. So far, you're the only "bunkie" around here. Your pathetic attempts to degrade this "discussion" to a virtual pissing war is really only showing you're just a troll...
Why? Because in last I heard, opposing charges attracted each other, not the other way around.
MaxWyght 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
And yes, that's applicable to electron/positron pair production as well.
In every single case observed, the pair is produced and are annihilated almost immediately.
The only exception to the above is inside high gravity regions, such as just before a black hole's event horizon. In Locations such as that, a particle may be wrenched from the anti particle, and thrown into space, while the anti particle is absorbed by the black hole(A.K.A Hawking radiation)
MaxWyght 5 months ago
If an electron came along before the proton was fully assembled, it would be attracted to the positron, and assembly would continue, forming a neutron, with the electron inside.
rongrite 7 months ago
i do support the theory of earth expanding.
earth is an object influenced by our solar system..and also by its own natur!
you burn gas and oil...shure it does transform but also weight..that of course does have a gravity inpact on planet earth itself..about the timeing..that long time ago oil and gas must have been stored befor we can harvest and burn it up..that fact points to a massive loss of weight on the surface like trees, mammals ect. water was set chemicaly free in size. (moonphase)
justme07a 8 months ago
Hello,
Please see my video on Non rechargeable battery zero point and give my your opinion.
MrNovaterra2012 9 months ago
I wish You were my Physics Teacher!!!!
xavier3961 9 months ago
I am skeptical about earth growing and do believe it must be growing somewhat from its earlier years with the amount of space junk being thrown at the earth every year, problem is people take this opportunity to try and imbed it with personal agenda's like creationism, but this is what I think, plate tectonics is true, however, I also believe that the mass is increasing, which is increasing the earth's core and allowing more surface area for plate tectonics to move about?
draccuss 10 months ago
@draccuss
Would you not say that the Suns rays hit earth and transform into matter? This matter stays on Earth and the Earth grows.
MrNovaterra2012 9 months ago
@MathDoobler Yeah WTF is this Sh?! Get the F out here Frankenstein. You have a lot to answer for. How dare you meddle in things that aren't your business/ How DARE you deal with the Magnet-ological sciences you GIMP!
Right Nerfi Look at him using UNNATURAL magnetics (As if THAT controlled anything,... and TRIES TO CREATE a structure that will never work together. See, See. He's using a TRICK, as if those would be a PERFECT STRUCTURE. HAH! Hissssssss.
nealadamsdotcom 10 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom I thought I already responded to this, but I guess not. In the video you say that there is a single positron in the centre. Are you suggesting that the particle you're replicating is both an awkward polyhedron (not spherical, unlike everything else in the universe) and asymmetrical? Or can you explain the necessity of eight magnets in the centre with only one positron?
I'm not condemning you, just trying to understand.
Nerfi 11 months ago
Would you please explain the significance of this tutorial? I am not knowledgeable enough to see why this is a big deal.
wetlazer 11 months ago
Addendum; I believe the universe IS polar, and only appears to be planar because of how small we are. It's the way our brains look at the universe, which doesn't mean that that's the way it is. Observation is inherently faulty because we are not omniscient. I know, it's a little out there, but that's where good ideas originate.
Nerfi 11 months ago
@Nerfi
very good point i was just looking at a post someone put on my facebook page about the earth expansion theory which i was dubious about straight away as we do know a good deal about how our planet works and a lot of it is common sensical and we use impirical data thats how we understand the world we live in ! As to the Universe we and all its constituant parts are more intertwined and connected in more ways then we can comprehend right now from the atom to the biggest black holes . . .
MrROLY1973 11 months ago
Clever model, but I have one major issue with it. If you have a 10x10x10 cube, then there IS no individual magnet acting as the centre. You have a box of eight (coordinates (x,y,z); (5,5,5), (5,6,5), (5,6,6), (5,5,6), (6,5,5), (6,5,6), (6,6,6) and (6,6,5). If I had 1000 of those little ball-bearings to play with, I'd help you construct a more accurate model (should be more spherical as well, remember your fractals!). Perhaps using a polar coordinate plane instead of planar?
Nerfi 11 months ago
@PinkProgram LOOK,.. If you have a specific question or point, ASK/MAKE it. Don't just type any fuking thing that comes into your mind. You have NO idea the details of the things you read, because YOU were fed new terminolgy, that you don't understand. I break it down to common ENGLISH and discuss it.
MAKE A POINT!
ASK A QUESTION!
READ THE THINGS OTHERS ASK AND MY ANSWERS.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nealadamsdotcom my point is you have no idea what you are saying.
PinkProgram 1 year ago
Incorrect. The structure looks as much like a sphere as 1,000 minus 80 CAN and still retain its integrity and support surfaces,...ALSO, PARTICLES(ATOMS) are NOT spheres BUT CRYSTALINE in form,...the most stable and compacted is atoms in which the outer layer is a cube,..or eight cornered. IRON, for example.
Neutron-add one Electron.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
There is one discrepancie here, the structure would have to look like a sphere, and he fails when hetrieds to explain neutrons "one electron tucked away", Blah,
but makes sense for anymatter atleast, switch the places for positron and neutron.
papasmurfXXX 1 year ago
And can any predictions be made with this alternative to the standard model? something comparable but more accurate than the predictions made by our current understanding of quantum physics would suffice.
reubz11 1 year ago
@reubz11 Sure. !.All Matter is made of Electrons, Positrons and the MOTHER whole neutral-seeming Pre/Prime EM field.
2.Spliting apart Electrons and Positrons gives us/reveals to us Positive And Negative field,... which is the ONLY FORCE IN THE UNIVERSE. Therefor it IS GRAVITY, strong and weak force.
3. There's no such thing as a QUARK. 4. and no such thing as Asymmetry!
Lot's more!
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
OK, let's scale this up.
The mass of all the planets together is about 1% of the mass of the sun.
The core of each planet is about 1/10th the mass of its' planet.
100 times 10 is 1000. So would that make the total mass of the sun about 1000 to 1 times the total mass of all the cores, of all the orbiting planets? or is it closer to 1838:1?! Could the sun and solar system be a scaled up atom?
The core of each planet and moon being like electrons,
and the sun, a giant nucleus. Pattern repeats
rongrite 1 year ago
*scratches head*
Wannabetrolls 1 year ago
10 rows of 10 a thousand Lol
johnroiberts 1 year ago
@johnroiberts it's a 10 x 10 x 10 cube >.>
theneonfire 1 year ago
Fucking magnets! how do they work.
MaZe741 1 year ago
WAAAAIIIIT wait wait wait.
Did he just say a neutron was a positron and an electron? Please correct me if I misheard.
theneonfire 1 year ago
@theneonfire Play it again. Electron and Proton.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom Yes he is referring to the statement at 4:30
snakeguy76 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom isn't 1 electron and 1 proton a hydrogen atom... I looked it up... you actually think a neutron is a hydrogen atom o.O Seriously?
PinkProgram 1 year ago
@PinkProgram Of course I do. If the universe began by producing Hydrogen from Pair-Production, which then collected into our first suns, how do you think the universe got neutrons to create/assemble all the other atoms?
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom so you honestly don't know what a neutron is then... a neutron is not a hydrogen atom.
PinkProgram 1 year ago
@PinkProgram Then you will have to call the Physicists who commonly, in the lab, remove an Electron from the Neutron and a Proton remains, and adds an Electron to a Proton and get a Neutron.
You MAY find this on Wiki.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom a free neutron rapidly decays into a proton because neutrons by themselves are unstable. If you remove an electron from hydrogen you get Hydron or H+ which is commonly referred to as a proton. If you add an electron to H+ you get hydrogen. A neutron has a neutral charge and free neutrons have a lifespan of 15 minutes. Free neutrons are produced by nuclear fission or fusion. A free neutron is not a hydrogen atom. Not even close.
PinkProgram 1 year ago
@PinkProgram All you are doing is proving my point. Free Neutrons do not exist. There needs to be Hydrogen atoms heated/energized/expanded in a sunlike object to allow the Hydrogen's Electron to enter the Proton to become a Neutron.
Of course Neutrons are Hydrogen Atoms. There's nothing else for them to be made of.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom
How does this video support your idea that the Earth is somehow expanding? What connection does it have to "Growing Earth?
kd5alc 10 months ago
@theneonfire No he said that structure is a neutron OR if it has a positron in the center, a proton.
entrailsgalore 1 year ago
No, the Universe wasn't gathered in an infititesimal point. There's nothing in science or nature to suggest any such Science Fictional thing,...and that's what we have to go to. It makes much more sense to look at things we know and assume these processes ar similar, but not exactly the same as the beginning processes.
To get an "EMPTY" Universe, you can assume simple stages to end in an ocean of something from which matter is MADE. There we are stopped because we THINK the universe is EMPTY
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@thechessstick Math doesn't suggest that the universe came from nothing. It came from something. In fact all of the matter of the universe was accumulated in an infinitesimal point.
That's something from something.
Also the area outside the point would have still contained energy. You CAN in fact create matter from energy, and vice versa. It does that all the time, in fact.
LrdAsmodeous 1 year ago
@LrdAsmodeous Please, we are not 5-year-olds here. If all of the matter was at one small infinitesimal point then that one point with all of the matter was the universe. So, then where did that universe come from? It doesn't matter what size the universe is. Enormous or infinitesimal it still had to have a beginning and it had to come from somewhere. It had to be caused. This includes, space, time, matter, energy, and the laws which govern it.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@amathematicalmontage You know according to math the universe cannot exist unless God created it. Mathematically you cannot get something from nothing. So it had to take a miracle. Therefore one can mathematically prove that God the Creator exists. Thank you...
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick What the fuck do you mean you mathematically can't get something from nothing? Check this out: x[n+1] = x[n] + 1 with x[0] = 0. There I just defined a system where the next state depends on the previous, starting from nothing, it gives you something. Shit, I can't believe you posted that in response to my comment about talking out your ass. Math doesn't say anything, it's a tool, and when it's abstractions are applied to measurements it can describe nature with scary accuracy.
amathematicalmontage 1 year ago
@amathematicalmontage Sorry, that is some bad math there. zero times anything is zero. zero plus anything = that anything. zero is the additive identity not the multiplicative identity.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick There is no bad math there. It's called a recurrence relation. Please google it. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. I study mathematical physics.
amathematicalmontage 1 year ago
@amathematicalmontage If you study math then you should have had some classes in logic and reason as well. Do you know that one can prove that there was a beginning to time by using reason? And I stand by my statement about the "big bang". That is not a theory it is a lie for children.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@thechessstick Furthermore you can not prove whether god exists or not. It can proven though, that either a god of infinite form (all knowning) exists or we have free will. Because those are two mutually exclusive things. Logically you can't say god knows everything but doesn't know the outcome of all the events of our lives, meaning it knows before we are born whether we are going to heaven or hell, and has infact picked that for us by the very act of creation.
amathematicalmontage 1 year ago
@amathematicalmontage Yes, God of course knows that but it is still a free choice. You can either believe in Jesus or not. What have you decided to do about Jesus?
thechessstick 1 year ago
@DorchestraBiscuit - For people like you, I highly recommend, the cat fart, and the oriental breast massage videos. There's also one on crybabies with sensitive skin. Perhaps that will make up for any lose you may feel, snookums. Then you can go tell mommy about your hurt feelings.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
they're called buckyballs, you can see the orange plastic container they come in at 2:45
vespine 1 year ago
Question. What stops the prime matter particle from imploding on itself? How massive are these particles? Considering their size, the Weak Coulomb force is unlikely to have any effect, is this a different type of attraction/repulsion?
Also this seems to completely go against the standard model. You seem to think that a proton has a positron at the centre, this is not the case, a proton is composed of two up quarks and one down quark. Have I misunderstood you?
jonnydarkmusic 1 year ago
@jonnydarkmusic The universe is PULLING OUTWARD, making these little bubbles of less-than-nothing . This is the "THING"we call EM. Haven't you always wondered what EM actually IS? EM is the outpulling force of the universe (From "SPIN"? I don't know. )And the IN-PULLING force that seeks to keep/hold the universe together. This is the only basic force in the universe. No MAGIC, just out-pulling and in-pulling. on force lines. EM.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom Your model for explaining electromagnetism leaves no room for a photon. Modern physics disagrees with you, what do you say?
Necrosis57 1 year ago
@nealadamsdotcom Magnetism is when it is allowed to flow in a particular direction. It is constantly moving in all direction but but certain elements such as iron allow it to flow in a particular direction. Gravitational attraction is caused by this "thing" being displaced by matter and a "vacuum" is created. Gravitational attraction between to objects is caused by a "shadow" being cast on each other thus creating a sort of void between the 2 objects which causes a "falling" together.
thechessstick 1 year ago
@jonnydarkmusic There is no such thing as a quark. I know, I know. Just as there is NO such thing as a snowball.
A snowball is a collection of snowflakes. Quarks are under great pressure and they are collected Prime Matter Particles/
There IS a Positron Inside the Proton. That's what it's charge is. In Positive Beta decay WHAT COMES OUT? Magic?
There is NO "Creation Moment for a QUARK? Free of the Parent Particle, they dissappear. So,.. where did they come from? Quark-land?
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
why do folk need to be harsh with the other comments. Someone has taken the time to explain quantum physics for free. Then broke it down so an idiot can understand it.
nbr3223 1 year ago
Very Interesting. Thanks for uploading the video.
3987Gara 1 year ago
@bluenose193 - Astute, avuncular, and absolutely 100% true. Finding a brilliant mind like yours on the internet is a once in a lifetime experience. You are beyond brilliant and knowledgeable. I just simply cannot find the words. Kudos to you deep thinker.
Now, back to the cat fart videos.
nealadamsdotcom 1 year ago
NEOCUBE!
rubenmorales19 1 year ago
very cool!!!!
cuanamar 1 year ago
So, you built a proton out of the things we "mistake" for quarks. Great job!
Now make a charged pion and a neutral pion and a kaon and a delta++ and an omega and a sigma and a xi... maybe an eta or a rho... that will get you up to around 1970. And let us know what masses your model predicts for each. Some decay channels and rates would be great too!
I mean- you know we didn't stop discovering subatomic particles in the '30s, right?
(Claim they don't exists Then explain why it seems they do!)
doctordave 1 day ago
Please explain what you mean when you say the "positive and negative forces flow from the inside to the outside..."
Because, the way every physicist uses and understands those words...
1) Positive and negative are labels for types of charge. They are not types of force.
2) Force is a word used to describe an interaction between two bodies that can cause them to accelerate. A force is not something that can "flow".
Can you please define these terms for us?
doctordave 1 day ago
On cosmic rays and pair production;
thunder storms are known to produce gamma rays.
The idea is, that clouds are like fuel cells, combining hydrogen and oxygen, and producing rain and lightning.
More evidence has just been discovered, that gamma rays may also be formed in just a hydrogen/oxygen reaction!
(Neal, you got to see this!)
watch?v=jC_-6XgeqJo
rongrite 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from nealadamsdotcom
aarrrgh my head exploded, did not get any of that!
sheepneck69 2 weeks ago
@sheepneck69 Watch my other dozen videos
nealadamsdotcom 2 weeks ago
What if electron and positrons were little monopole magnets?
The flow of the magnets is electricity, and spreads the range of their magnetic fields, along the line of conduction. Static electricity would be the cumulative effect of an abundance, or lack of electrons, stationary around an object. Gravity would be the slight attraction from positrons in atoms, to the electrons in the shells of other atoms. i wonder what the effects of a concentration of positrons would be? Anti-static electricity?
rongrite 2 weeks ago
What is the experimental evidence for these "prime matter particles? Explain what you mean when you say "force flows", because that makes no sense given the definition of force.
These are big claims; if magnetic field lines leave "prime matter particles" without forming closed loops, then there is a non-zero magnetic flux and you are claiming to have discovered a magnetic monopole, which is something you'll have to back up with a lot of falsifiable theory and reproducible experimental evidence.
DarknessHowls 1 month ago
@DarknessHowls You think so? An Electron is a Monopole.
Bad? A positron is a Monopole! Prove me wrong. You can't.
2. An ATOM is a complete field. It MUST BE doesn't it? Electron into Nuclei. Nuclei to Electron. Yet some FIELD/attraction escapes,....and we call it Gravity!
Field "flows".?!
nealadamsdotcom 1 month ago
@nealadamsdotcom - An electron is an electrical monopole, yes. You are claiming to have found a magnetic monopole, however, which is not the same thing. Also, now fields "flow" too? Sorry, but the way you're talking about things does not seem compatible with what the mathematical/physical concept of a force field actually represents. Could you clarify what exactly you mean by fields or forces "flowing"?
DarknessHowls 1 month ago
@DarknessHowls - An electron is a monopole and a positron is a monopole, tell me what's wrong with that.
You're asking me to explain something that no one understands completely. I will tell you what it seems like. It seems as though there is a flow toward a positron. It seems as though there is a flow away from an electron, and yet at the same time, the flow remains attached to the causative pole. Like gravity, magnetism, the strong force, and the electro weak force.
nealadamsdotcom 1 month ago
@nealadamsdotcom - As per the monopole question: Electric "poles" (positive and negative charge) are one type of thing. Electrical monopoles (isolated +/- charges) are found in nature. Magnetic poles (North or South charge) are another type of thing. We have only seen pairs of N/S poles in nature; never an isolated N or S pole. Thus, we say magnetic monopoles do not exist (though many physicists have a gut feeling that they should exist, and are searching very hard for them).
DarknessHowls 1 month ago
@DarknessHowls - To clarify. In the primitive beginning universe, there was 1 force. I don't believe it really did much of anything. It just held the universe stable. Then something, (perhaps spin), pulled at the universe, forced it apart. But in Planck-sized fields. Each field pulling to close and re-join yet being pulled apart. This pulling apart and pulling together was and remains the only force in the universe. There is 1 force not 4. The only force. The universe is stupid.
nealadamsdotcom 1 month ago
@nealadamsdotcom - What you say sounds nice, but how do you know it is true? An idea sounding good or making sense to you is not sufficient evidence of its validity. In physics, careful experiment and measurement are the arbiters of truth, not one's cleverly crafted arguments. So, what falsifiable predictions does your hypothesis make? And have they been rigorously tested by experiment?
DarknessHowls 1 month ago
And, I really like the expanding-Earth idea. The universe has been shown (by Hubble?) to be expanding, which follows from the Big Bang (evidenced by the uniform cosmic microwave background radiation), so (while I never considered it until your videos), it makes sense that the Earth is expanding as well (perhaps like a Silly Putty cartoon face). Question: Neal, do you think more matter is being created from within or is it that what is here is simply getting bigger?
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
@LastingHappiness4ALL Well, it is certainly NOT "EXPANDING". There is no such Physical process. The process we know is GROWING,... and not to be too simplistic, but GROWING is the only process of increase (Unless you add another factor, Thermal, chemical, explosive gases- yeast? heh.) We KNOW and understand GROWTH,.... to add more "STUFF" and GROW! How do we add more stuff?
Well, Pair-Production! It's the ONLY CHOICE! The only form of MATTER CREATION!
nealadamsdotcom 1 month ago
@nealadamsdotcom Pair-Production, in our little experience on the cold dead crust of this super-heated plasma and silicate ENGINE! So what,...UNSEEN,...does this ENGINE "DO"???
It stops Pairs from RE-JOINING! We can do it in colliders. It's easy! Magnetic fields!
So,..if the magnetic field going thru the Plasma outer core can HOLD Pairs apart,...what happens then?
Theoretically the Positron will attract Prime Matter Particles. and as here, make Protons!
Then- TA-DAAA
nealadamsdotcom 1 month ago
Ok, enough for now, but please know that I'm only trying to stimulate a real discussion of potential whole-number organizations for physics and I feel like your work can help me correct/augment/clarify what I've gathered in my experience. Ultimately, I *know* that this universe can be understood as information ("it from bit") and that we are designed to comprehend and explore it fully. The ear does not make the sound, nor the eye the light, why think the brain creates the thoughts, neh?
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
@LastingHappiness4ALL Very profound last sentence but so obvious. Not saying that's bad just something starring one in the face and really not noticing.
B00MK 1 month ago
3) Each of the 6 layers of the onion (the vibrational dimensions that cohabit the universal 3-space), each has the same total mass, which accounts for the effects seen by 'dark matter'. In fact, the estimate (see wikipedia) is that it contributes 83% of the matter in the universe and, well, 5 / 6 = 83.333... While the aggregate mass affects global features (eg: galaxies), we are different phases so we do not directly interfere with each other.
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
2d) A Photon (Y) is an E- (from our dimension) and an E- from a different one (perhaps E+) that are orbiting each other across the dimensional/vibrational barrier. The eccentricity of the orbital relationship determines its wavelength & frequency in our dimension. Something about their relationship diminishes the apparent weight in our dimension (dunno the details).
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
2c) Now, when a collider smashes atoms together at great velocity, it appears that such energy can actually allow a positron to temporarily become visible in our dimension, but it very quickly reverts back to its rightful dimension. I understand that intense magnetic fields can also cause the dominant shells to temporarily swap, as in a certain experiment purported to take place in Philadelphia. Also, it seems to agree with your no-annihilation understanding, Neal.
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
2b) The 4 energy shells of the E- are rotating relative to each other and that is a source of energy that gives rise to charge (among others, perhaps). The dimension of the dominant shell (they are not all equal but have relative proportion) determines the dimension the electron appears in. As such, a positron is just an electron whose dominant shell is in our anti-dimension. (Note that the 4 dimensions are organized as 2 pairs.)
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
2a) The fundamental nature of the E- (which is what, in various forms, comprises the smallest visible component of matter) is that of 4 concentric, relatively-proportional energy shells, each shell residing in one of the 4 primary concurrent (like an onion) vibrational dimensions. There are two other dimensions at the vibrational extremes making a total of 6 dimensions within our 3-space.
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
1) Yes, the fact that basically the weight of one N equals the weight of one P+ plus one E- makes an awfully convenient integer basis for the weights of the elementary particles and that, for the Occam's Razor fans (like me), is surely a heckuva lot simpler than the P+ weighing 1.672621777(74)E−27kg. For those who complain that the weights do not exactly match up, well, scientists doesn't always know how much error is built into their instruments / mindsets.
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
Neal, very nice work thinking outside the box. I'll share some understanding I may have on this topic that will almost certainly give you food for thought.
My purpose is simply for all human beings to have lasting peace & happiness. For me, happiness includes finding out how the universe works because it is vastly beautiful.
That said, my perspectives are not from *my* own knowledge but that which I've learned from elsewhere (from odd places, surely, tho :-) ...
LastingHappiness4ALL 1 month ago
Nice trick with magnets. Show me the proof of your theory in an experiment, and have it peer reviewed. Then I would believe you.
AdeptusVideos 1 month ago
@nealadamsdotcom and twice the 919 is 1,838 plus the "Positive" charge of the Positron inside.
nealadamsdotcom 2 months ago
Quarks cannot be clumps of prime matter particles because they have fractional charges. Your theory does not allow for fractional charges. Science.
whendiditfall 2 months ago
I enjoy how you claim that your 'prime matter' particles are invisible, yet you also say that protons and neutrons, which you also claim are composed of 'prime matter' particles, are completely visible. Your thoughts?
grandragon1 4 months ago
@grandragon1 - There are 2 ways of "seeing" by it's weight, and by it's electromagnetic field. You cannot actually see a particle.
A proton, has the same EM field/charge as an electron. But it weigh 1838 times an electron. So we "see" these particles only when their magnetic fields are activated, and they "become" matter.
nealadamsdotcom 4 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom To which I refer you to electron microscopy, where we can easily see protons and neutrons in the nucleus of atoms. I also had another question; other than by your own intuition, how do you seemingly know that your positrons attract your 'prime matter' particles? Why should they even attract them if the 'prime matter' is not charged? And why doesn't the electron attract them? You shouldn't be able to answer these questions; run some experiments for me and get back to me.
grandragon1 4 months ago
@grandragon1 -" We", cannot "see protons at the nucleus of atoms", unless you will have discovered an incredible new ability of electron microscopes. If you have, send any such photos to the New York Times.
They'll run them tomorrow.
Positrons attract Prime Matter particles, because the outside bubble is the Electron half, (And the Positron is the POINT Particle at the "bubbles core" . The positron attracts the SHELL before being repulsed by the core.
nealadamsdotcom 4 months ago
@grandragon1 If the Electron is highly energized, it may over-power the electron shell and attract the positrons inside. AND collect Prime Matter Particles and build Muons and possibly Taus
nealadamsdotcom 4 months ago
@grandragon1 I suggest that if you don't wish to seem stupid, don't say stupid things.
nealadamsdotcom 4 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom Actually a proton weighs 1,836.15267245 times as much as an electron.
whendiditfall 2 months ago
@tahunu Fine. Go back to CRASHING CONTINENTS! Enjoy. My faves are the continents that crashed into North and South America that created the Rockies and Andes.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
Hi Neal. I think this is an interesting theory. I wonder, what is your reasoning behind the exact number of these prime particles? And, you mention the principle of quarks as lumps of prime particles, but what makes one lump different from another when the prime particles are 'neutral' as you say?
Vermilicious 5 months ago
@Vermil I begin with the weight. Then I calculate how to get this and for it to be structurally sound. I tried a thousand different structures. A 10x10x10 cube, made perfect by removing ten from each corner was the perfect structure as to retaining particles AND extend out to a fields extent. Finally, it was exactly the proper weight. Still I tried many other structures. This was perfect , logical, and exact.
Within the Proton Particles exchange force. Not unlike the shells of Electrons
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
Comment removed
micometer 5 months ago
@MaxWyght I guess that's why we used to call it Electron Weight,...the STANDARD.
Max, DON'T Fuk with me with this bull! Look this stuff up BEFORE YOU POST, or I'm GONNA BLOCK YOU. I promise.
LOOK AT THE GEOMETRY of the final piece in the video. THINK!
MY MATH is simple and "IN FRONT" and GIVEN. Pay attention to the video!
I'm already a hero. Ain't no Thaing. Why the hell don't you ask some serious and important questions? I don't get it?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
lol Best reply ever. Epic even
3rdEYEbeHolder 5 months ago
@tphilippou1 If Electrons and Positrons are not stopped from annihilating (Stupid unscientific Phrase,) Then we cannot have Electrons in our Universe. IF there IS a PROCESS by which Electrons and Positrons can be stopped from annihilating each other,....then I must be correct. THIS is an undenyable conclusion!
That's how science works BUNKIE! If a deduction is correct, the conclusion described MUST BE TRUE!
MY qualifications? If I'm right! The ultimate qualifier.
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@tphilippou1 .. what qualifications do you have to rebut the theory?
MrSchpankme 6 months ago
@tphilippou1 1. It's called DEDUCTION! Lot's of deductive evidence.
2.Well, they're flying away from each other pretty damn fast, bunkie.
nealadamsdotcom 7 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
1. Deduction isn't worth jack without mathematical proof. seeing as how you've no mathematical, or observational proof whatsoever, as opposed to the leading theory about quarks(there's a shitload of observational evidence. some dudes even won a nobel prize in physics for observing those bastards in a particle accelerator). I'd rather trust a theory supported by an egghead with a nobel prize to his name, than some crackpot's pseudo scientist's "deductions".
MaxWyght 5 months ago
@MaxWyght Pardon ME. But my PROOF is completely mathematical in nature. AS IS my deductive PROOF! I merely have no Experimental proof. However, if the rest is true, the experimental proof will happen and be correct. That's the wonderful thing about science. When your RIGHT, it works.
Those "DUDES" were WRONG. They saw snowballs and called them snow flakes. Do you need this analogy explained to you????
MY verification is ELECTRON WEIGHT... and PROPER GEOMETRY! "OBSERVED" At Earth's CORE?
nealadamsdotcom 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
Besides, what's the deductive evidence to support exactly 920 particles of positive and 920 particles of negative charges bunched together? why not 500/500, or 1024/1024?
2. So far, you're the only "bunkie" around here. Your pathetic attempts to degrade this "discussion" to a virtual pissing war is really only showing you're just a troll...
Why? Because in last I heard, opposing charges attracted each other, not the other way around.
MaxWyght 5 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom
And yes, that's applicable to electron/positron pair production as well.
In every single case observed, the pair is produced and are annihilated almost immediately.
The only exception to the above is inside high gravity regions, such as just before a black hole's event horizon. In Locations such as that, a particle may be wrenched from the anti particle, and thrown into space, while the anti particle is absorbed by the black hole(A.K.A Hawking radiation)
MaxWyght 5 months ago
If an electron came along before the proton was fully assembled, it would be attracted to the positron, and assembly would continue, forming a neutron, with the electron inside.
rongrite 7 months ago
i do support the theory of earth expanding.
earth is an object influenced by our solar system..and also by its own natur!
you burn gas and oil...shure it does transform but also weight..that of course does have a gravity inpact on planet earth itself..about the timeing..that long time ago oil and gas must have been stored befor we can harvest and burn it up..that fact points to a massive loss of weight on the surface like trees, mammals ect. water was set chemicaly free in size. (moonphase)
justme07a 8 months ago
Hello,
Please see my video on Non rechargeable battery zero point and give my your opinion.
MrNovaterra2012 9 months ago
I wish You were my Physics Teacher!!!!
xavier3961 9 months ago
I am skeptical about earth growing and do believe it must be growing somewhat from its earlier years with the amount of space junk being thrown at the earth every year, problem is people take this opportunity to try and imbed it with personal agenda's like creationism, but this is what I think, plate tectonics is true, however, I also believe that the mass is increasing, which is increasing the earth's core and allowing more surface area for plate tectonics to move about?
draccuss 10 months ago
@draccuss
Would you not say that the Suns rays hit earth and transform into matter? This matter stays on Earth and the Earth grows.
MrNovaterra2012 9 months ago
@MathDoobler Yeah WTF is this Sh?! Get the F out here Frankenstein. You have a lot to answer for. How dare you meddle in things that aren't your business/ How DARE you deal with the Magnet-ological sciences you GIMP!
Right Nerfi Look at him using UNNATURAL magnetics (As if THAT controlled anything,... and TRIES TO CREATE a structure that will never work together. See, See. He's using a TRICK, as if those would be a PERFECT STRUCTURE. HAH! Hissssssss.
nealadamsdotcom 10 months ago
@nealadamsdotcom I thought I already responded to this, but I guess not. In the video you say that there is a single positron in the centre. Are you suggesting that the particle you're replicating is both an awkward polyhedron (not spherical, unlike everything else in the universe) and asymmetrical? Or can you explain the necessity of eight magnets in the centre with only one positron?
I'm not condemning you, just trying to understand.
Nerfi 11 months ago
Would you please explain the significance of this tutorial? I am not knowledgeable enough to see why this is a big deal.
wetlazer 11 months ago