new theory...


Thread starter #1
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
42
Likes
0
new theory...

neutrons repell, proton attract. Depending on how many neutrons there are over protons tells us if its gas or solid (depending on pressure). Neutrons are the opposite of proton. Yet the opposite of these two is electrons. Electrons spread evenly, depending on resistance of flow.

If you combine these opposites on a subatomic level, they should cancel eachother out,.. hence quantum fluxuation. Maybe God did create everything from nothing.

Of course my theory about God is, sins are sins because they hurt us on some level. Only an all seeing God can show us rules to a better life that are beyond our comprehension. Science would reveal why God created certain rules. Yet how could science do such things if it doesn't recogonize the single most important element of human exsistance,.. the soul.

Love is evidence of the soul. For when you feel love, it comes from outside your body (where you are hugged or kissed),.. not from with-in like a hormone. I theorize that sex outside of love is a sin because love gives sex content. Sex outside of love is prioritizing getting off, and what you use to get off can be whatever you want it to be. We may make rules for proper sleeping around, but are these rules grounded in reality?
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,082
Likes
1,808
Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>
neutrons repell, proton attract. Depending on how many neutrons there are over protons tells us if its gas or solid (depending on pressure). Neutrons are the opposite of proton. Yet the opposite of these two is electrons. Electrons spread evenly, depending on resistance of flow.[/b]
SOU,
Neutrons do not repel. They are merely particles that have no charge. In this sense, you could say that neutrons are the opposite of both protons and electrons, since those two particles do have charge (although the charges are opposite.) The true opposite of a proton is an antiproton; an electron, the antielectron; a neutron, the antineutron.

The number of neutrons "over" protons is in no way informative of whether or not a substance is gaseous. Every element will be gaseous at the right temperature, as well as solid or liquid.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>
If you combine these opposites on a subatomic level, they should cancel eachother out,.. hence quantum fluxuation. Maybe God did create everything from nothing.
[/b]
If you combine the true opposites that I listed above, they do cancel out. It doesn't matter if you look at it on a subatomic level or not. If you combine the opposites you listed "on a subatomic level," you will get atoms. No cancellation will occur.

Harte
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
290
Likes
2
Re: new theory...

If they did 'cancel each other out' we would not be here to read this post...

nice try though, keep it up...
 
Thread starter #4
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
42
Likes
0
Re: new theory...

To the first post... your a joke,.. no one found any antiprotons. matter and antimatter. Yet antimatter could be a forth opposite,.. not acting like any of the 3 elements of matter.

Gasses repell (hence gasious pressure infinativly reacting in space), liquids attract (hence a drop of watter on a table will bubble up). Liquids harden to a solid and keep form. Yet gassious planets keep form because of a liquid core creating a greater gravity reacting to all matter that shares the three basic elements.

to the second post... What are the chances of these three elements combinning on a subatomic level? especially since these three elements have found their own exsistance. obviously it only happens as much as quantum fluctuation happens.

How many theories do you know that explain quantum fluxuation???

Here's somthing deeper. the two elements of electromagnatism are created when resisted by two elements of protons and neutrons. Since every atom has bolth protons and neutrons, you cannot have one without the other. We use magnatism to create electricity because you cannot excite one energy without exciting the other.

Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
290
Likes
2
Re: new theory...

I don't know how do you explain it ? Is this not one of the theories put forward to shore up the expanding Universe theory, or is that made up ?

<edit> Sorry just a spelling mistake, Google does come up with a few matches for it though...</edit>

And what ? Quantum Fluctuation, is the appearance of particles that are instantly anhialated by their anti-particle.

Atoms are atoms, they are there and exist. If the neutron and electron are opposite they would finish each other off. The atom is stable so this doesn't happen or am I missing the point ?

what's that rumbling noise ?
 
Thread starter #6
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
42
Likes
0
Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>
I don't know how do you explain it ? Is this not one of the theories put forward to shore up the expanding Universe theory, or is that made up ??[/b]
The expanding universe...so gravity is caused by matter expanding, witch causes some unexplained resistance. But wouldn't that mean that other energies have to mysteriously multiply to equal the gap created by expansion. Or is energy just mysteriously growing to force this expanding universe.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"thenumbersix\")</div>
<edit> Sorry just a spelling mistake, Google does come up with a few matches for it though...</edit>

And what ? Quantum Fluctuation, is the appearance of particles that are instantly anhialated by their anti-particle.

Atoms are atoms, they are there and exist. If the neutron and electron are opposite they would finish each other off. The atom is stable so this doesn't happen or am I missing the point ?

what's that rumbling noise ?[/b]
neutrons and elctrons are opposites. But then there is a third and equal opposite,.. witch is electrons. But wiat, there might be a forth opposite,.. antimatter witch follows no ordinary order.

Yet you say that anti-matter has three elements, witch are equal and opposite energies to ;protons, neutrons, and electrons. Yet antimatter has been found in how many forms??? Obviously the way antimatter has been found doesn't allow us to study it... only because it acts differently then the three opposites we do know of; electrons, neutrons, and protons.

Where are the three different definitions of antimatter? At least in theory you say they are possiable,.. but how are they possiable. Anti matter acts one way we know of. Pertaining no stability that we could study it. Yet that is the exact opposite to the three things we do know.

the only real way to compare; electrons, neutrons, and protons is by definition. Numbers just explain how much this definition takes place.

and by numbers we see how much; electrons, neutrons, and protons react. But just like an X and Y axis grid there is the equal and opposite X and Y grid defined by negatives, antimatter still cannot be possiable concieved into a relative definition of your theory.

burdon of proof.
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,082
Likes
1,808
Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>
To the first post... your a joke,.. no one found any antiprotons. matter and antimatter. Yet antimatter could be a forth opposite,.. not acting like any of the 3 elements of matter. .[/b]
SOU,
<span style='font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif'>In 1932 Carl Anderson, a young professor at the California Institute of Technology, was studying showers of cosmic particles in a cloud chamber and saw a track left by \\"something positively charged, and with the same mass as an electron\\". After nearly one year of effort and observation, he decided the tracks were actually antielectrons, each produced alongside an electron from the impact of cosmic rays in the cloud chamber. He called the antielectron a \\"positron\\", for its positive charge. Confirmed soon after by Occhialini and Blackett, the discovery gave Anderson the Nobel Prize in 1936 and proved the existence of antiparticles as predicted by Dirac.
(From HERE)</span>

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]I may be a joke, but you have revealed yourself as ignorant. Antimatter was first discovered (meaning actually found) in 1932. Get your head out of your *** or wherever it's been since you were born and you might find out a few things about the world. For example, did you know that humans have actually visited the Moon?
For your edification, here are some links about this substance that you had assumed was only theoretical:

http://encarta.msn.com/related_761567432_1...Time.html#tcsel

http://www.psigate.ac.uk/roads/cgi-bin/psi...t=0&subject=All

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>
Gasses repell (hence gasious pressure infinativly reacting in space), liquids attract (hence a drop of watter on a table will bubble up). Liquids harden to a solid and keep form. Yet gassious planets keep form because of a liquid core creating a greater gravity reacting to all matter that shares the three basic elements..[/b]
Gas is one phase of matter (any matter,) there are four phases of matter. Gasses do not repel in the least. Nor do liquids attract. Liquids (most liquids) exhibit what is called "surface tension", which is a very weak electromagnetic attractive force which is also present in the other forms of matter. With gasses (and plasmas), this weak force is overcome by the energy (temperature) of the molecules in question. In a solid, this force is present but not observed because there are stronger attractive forces at work (molecular bonds).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>
to the second post... What are the chances of these three elements combinning on a subatomic level? especially since these three elements have found their own exsistance. obviously it only happens as much as quantum fluctuation happens..[/b]
Quantum fluctuation is occuring in all places at all times (even in the spaces between your "three elements of matter" in every atom in every object.
If you are asking what are the chances of a proton, a neutron and an electron combining to make an atom, the answer is 100%, if they are near enough to each other. This is called deuterium, or "heavy hydrogen". On the other hand, if by "subatomic level" you mean a level at less than atomic (which is what it actually means) then the chances are almost zero, unless you have applied a tremendous amount of force (enormous gravity can combine electrons with protons, creating neutrons, that's how a neutron star is formed.)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>
How many theories do you know that explain quantum fluxuation???.[/b]
The nature of this question implies that you know nothing about quantum fluctuation. This phenomenon was predicted by quantum mechanics, it cannot be observed per se. You are asking for an explanation of quantum fluctuation as if it needs one. It does not. It is completely explained by the original quantum theory. In fact, this theory predates the above mentioned discovery of antimatter (and also predicted that.) Run your own Google search this time.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>
Here's somthing deeper. the two elements of electromagnatism are created when resisted by two elements of protons and neutrons. Since every atom has bolth protons and neutrons, you cannot have one without the other. We use magnatism to create electricity because you cannot excite one energy without exciting the other..[/b]
Find the neutron in a hydrogen atom, Mr. Science.

Here you reveal your complete lack of understanding of electromagnetism. Protons and neutrons are in no way associated with "creating" electromagnetic energy or electricity or magnetism or electromagnetism. These statements of yours make no sense whatsoever. They are actually nonsensical.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>
Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.[/b]
Perhaps you should examine the contents of your own pipe before making such a suggestion.

Harte
 

Eutychus

Junior Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
37
Likes
0
Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>
Gasses repell [/b]
I'm not sure if this will further the discussion, but in my experience, gases repel the most shortly following a turkey dinner.
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
290
Likes
2
Re: new theory...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>
The expanding universe...so gravity is caused by matter expanding, witch causes some unexplained resistance. But wouldn't that mean that other energies have to mysteriously multiply to equal the gap created by expansion. Or is energy just mysteriously growing to force this expanding universe.
[/b]
The arrival of there supposedly being masses of dark matter around to fuel the expansion is probably the most popular theory to explain the apparent accelerating expansion of the universe. All of these are still in a fairly early stage but do seem to have some substantial observational evidence, let's seee if it pans out..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"systemoftheuniverse\")</div>
neutrons and elctrons are opposites. But then there is a third and equal opposite,.. witch is electrons. But wiat, there might be a forth opposite,.. antimatter witch follows no ordinary order.

Yet you say that anti-matter has three elements, witch are equal and opposite energies to ;protons, neutrons, and electrons. Yet antimatter has been found in how many forms??? Obviously the way antimatter has been found doesn't allow us to study it... only because it acts differently then the three opposites we do know of; electrons, neutrons, and protons.

Where are the three different definitions of antimatter? At least in theory you say they are possiable,.. but how are they possiable. Anti matter acts one way we know of. Pertaining no stability that we could study it. Yet that is the exact opposite to the three things we do know.

the only real way to compare; electrons, neutrons, and protons is by definition. Numbers just explain how much this definition takes place.

and by numbers we see how much; electrons, neutrons, and protons react. But just like an X and Y axis grid there is the equal and opposite X and Y grid defined by negatives, antimatter still cannot be possiable concieved into a relative definition of your theory.

burdon of proof.[/b]
As I understand it antimatter is matter that is the opposite that your are looking for, it is not another 'element' it is an opposite element, there are anti-neutrons, anti-protons and anti-electrons, no doubt these can combine to make anti-atoms if left alone by matter ?

Isn't it thought that during the big bang an almost equal amount of matter and anti-matter came into existence but anhialated most of each other to leave behind the 'solid' matter that was around at the very beginning ?

The explanation for why there wasn't a mutual destruction I don't really know but no doubt Universe building is not an exact science, if this is a fluid process then sooner or later this eventuality must happen, otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe all of these things....

If there was an equal mutual destruction of matter and anti-matter the universe would again not exist, there would be a void of space and time possibly, would quantum fluctuation still work with the absence of anything ? Haven't they said that a point where mutual fluctuation has tipped the balance enough at one point to trigger the big bang ? This would then imply the presence of space and physics as we know it or is quantum physics working differently here also ?

Anyway, with a void where matter and anti-matter have perfectly annhialated each other would the big bang process eventually start all over again, this is mostly theoretical and some off the top of my head and obviously un-proven but to me for intelligent life to come about the Universe must be in a natural process of some sorts where natural selection works at its' most basic...somethimes the conditions are right and life evolves other times it is not right enough to sustain suitable physics to hold it all together and it collapses back into some almighty singularity, who knows, I'm just scratching around in it here...