always new theories have have to take the non-sense and diatribe of the few just insults with no back up , even though he is the one that brought up the subject
ah I stand corrected , good but in the photoelectric explaination , nowhere did I see the mention of quantum energy
Except that new theories have evidence to support them. They are NOT idle uninformed speculation. I take it that you're also unaware that new theories do tend to come from people who are thoroughly educated and conversant with the subject in which they propose the new theory? That valid new theories don't originate from ignorant cranks who can't be bothered to learn the subject? No back up? You couldn't be bothered to read links? This from the guy who has consistently skirted the issue of evidence (and reason)?
this does not make sense so you want me to read about ( links ) people who have supposably thought of this before and then ask for my evidence of .... explain
The only thing not making sense here is you. I've told you about "people thinking of your ideas before" in an earlier post (see post #51). My reply was about your complaint that I don't provide back up. That's what my links are. Evidence that you are wrong. YOU are the one that provides no back up.
I looked back and read the link on your post #51 it didn't explain the quantum world within the atom , it talked about light , a form of quantum energy the quantum energy within the atom though , is what I'm trying to discuss
And you still haven't explained exactly what you mean by "quantum world within the atom". Then try saying something sensible about it. What do you mean by "quantum energy within the atom" if you're not referring to such things a quanta of light and the photoelectric effect? You appear, still, to be misusing the term and attempting to apply it, as said previously, as some sort of panacea.
Quantum from my dictionary 2) any of the very small increments or parcels into which many forms of energy are subdivided thats where I am in my thinking
In other words your "thinking" consists of reading a dictionary (and, apparently not reading anything available from science sites or text books on the subject). Hardly "thinking" then, is it? And if this is as far as you've "thought" about the subject why do you think you're qualified to and make claims about fusion? Or that there's a "quantum world within the atom"?
You made the claim, you support it. So what? I think you've misremembered. Yes. And your point here would be? Um, no. The electron has always had quarks in it.
perfect and quarks do not like to be seperated at all therefore there must be an energy , of a form , that resides there either as a field or electric force of direction , meaning that, the field is 360 degrees , whereas electric force is concentrated energy , below 360 degree of a sphere or both I think both I mean't that only recently have I known this
Yes, the strong force. So what? Huh? But you haven't bothered to check? Sorry, I mis-spoke. There are no quarks in an electron. Quarks only make up hadrons. Still waiting for you to back up your claim that Considering that YOU have stated that quantum is What do you think the quantum is that's "inside a proton or electron"? Don't you think that (as per your definition) most types of energy are quantised? Do you think that protons are energy?
Yes, I caught that. Have you ever given any consideration to learning any physics before you make yourself look like an ignorant fool? (whoops, too late)