Superfluid , extreme cold temperatures

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

river

At this point superconductivity resides .

The electron is the wave , the proton and the sub-particles that make up the proton are the particles .

The electron has no sub-atomic particle form .

Therefore in this superfluid of cold temperatures we have ; the wave of the electron and the particles of the proton .

Inotherwords dark energy , dark matter since neither gives off light energy .

Because neither has formed a form of matter that can give off light energy . Yet. Nor can it form a magnetic field . Yet.

Such as Galaxies .
 
Last edited:
  1. Electrons are subatomic particles, just like protons.
  2. Protons have waveforms, just like electrons do.
  3. An electron is comparable to a proton, except inasmuch as it has a negative - rather than a positive - charge, and that it masses about 1/2000th as much.
  4. Superconductivity "resides" in temps as high as -23C (-9F), which is a mild winter day here in the North.
 
DaveC426913 said:
  1. Electrons are subatomic particles, just like protons.
  2. Protons have waveforms, just like electrons do.
  3. An electron is comparable to a proton, except inasmuch as it has a negative - rather than a positive - charge, and that it masses about 1/2000th as much.
  4. Superconductivity "resides" in temps as high as -23C (-9F), which is a mild winter day here in the North.
Click to expand...

1) disagree

Electrons have no sub-atomic particle forms . Protons do .

2) magnetic , so it seems .

In superconductivity there is no friction .

Hence the same in the superfluid of dark energy and dark matter .
 
Last edited:
There appears to be nothing to discuss in the opening post. There are a few scientific statements, then some cranky pseudoscientific claims, and that's about it. No questions, nothing to back up the pseudoscience, nothing to discuss.

river: please realise that sciforums is not your blog. This is a discussion forum.
 
James R said:
There appears to be nothing to discuss in the opening post. There are a few scientific statements, then some cranky pseudoscientific claims, and that's about it. No questions, nothing to back up the pseudoscience, nothing to discuss.

river: please realise that sciforums is not your blog. This is a discussion forum.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that there are things to discuss .

If not by you than by others .

I'm interested in what others think. Always.
 
Last edited:
But you've just made a bunch of claims. They sound like they might be scientific, but when i read through them it becomes clear that they are essentially contentless. The original ideas you've injected are backed up by precisely nothing; they are just bald statements with no reasoning, no justification, nothing anybody can get their teeth into. Sure, you've mixed in some statements that are already widely accepted, but that doesn't legitimise any of the additional crap you posted.

Also, as usual, some of what you posted makes no sense. There are dangling sentence fragments. There's the non-standard use of technical terms. There are vague hand-waves towards scientific terms, but not in any useful context.

I don't know what you think you're doing here, but this is just a waste of time.
 
But you've just made a bunch of claims. They sound like they might be scientific, but when i read through them it becomes clear that they are essentially contentless. The original ideas you've injected are backed up by precisely nothing; they are just bald statements with no reasoning, no justification, nothing anybody can get their teeth into. Sure, you've mixed in some statements that are already widely accepted, but that doesn't legitimise any of the additional crap you posted.
Click to expand...

Yet both both this dark energy and matter makes sense in my thinking .

Both are forms that have not yet become physical in the sense of something that is detectable . Because neither have manifested into a physical form until a Galaxy forms .
 
river said:
1) disagree
Click to expand...
It's not a vote! An electron is well-defined.

river said:
I'm interested in what others think. Always.
Click to expand...
Others think you should start with facts.

Electrons are subatomic particles and they have wave forms. This is fact.

I am pretty certain that just making your own stuff up for known scientific principles is just as forbidden in the Pseudoscience forum as anywhere else.

If you want to invent some alternate psuedophysics, with subatomic particles that don't have waveforms, then invent a new name for them. Leprechauns is taken.
 
DaveC426913 said:
It's not a vote! An electron is well-defined.


Others think you should start with facts.

Electrons are subatomic particles and they have wave forms. This is fact.

I am pretty certain that just making your own stuff up for known scientific principles is just as forbidden in the Pseudoscience forum as anywhere else.

If you want to invent some alternate psuedophysics, with subatomic particles that don't have waveforms, then invent a new name for them. Leprechauns is taken.
Click to expand...

But electrons are not formed by particles smaller . Electrons are what they are . There are no sub constituents to the electron .

You can't speak for others Dave .

Your thoughts are your own , nobody else's .
 
Last edited:
river:

I'm going to dig into your opening post to show you what's wrong with it (other than what I identified previously).

river said:
At this point superconductivity resides .
Click to expand...

Yes, but superconductivity is not fundamentally an effect of cold temperatures, and superfluidity is a different thing altogether.

The electron is the wave , the proton and the sub-particles that make up the proton are the particles .
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. Both electrons and protons are quantum particles, with both wave-like and particle-like properties. It makes no sense in modern physics to say that protons are particles while electrons are waves.

The electron has no sub-atomic particle form .
Click to expand...
Both electrons and protons are "sub-atomic", because that word means smaller than an atom.

You're correct if you're saying that protons have a sub-structure, whereas electrons do not (as far as we can tell). But that doesn't make protons particles or electrons waves. It's beside the point.

Therefore in this superfluid of cold temperatures we have ; the wave of the electron and the particles of the proton .

Inotherwords dark energy , dark matter since neither gives off light energy .
Click to expand...
Here's the unjustified jump into nonsense.

You have not in any way connected the concepts of dark energy or dark matter to electrons and protons, in a superfluid or anything else. This is why your post is pseudoscience. You jump from A to Z without feeling the need to connect A to B, then B to C, then C to D etc. in a series of logical steps that make sense.

There's also no sign in any of this that you have the foggiest notion of what dark matter or dark energy is.

Because neither has formed a form of matter that can give off light energy . Yet. Nor can it form a magnetic field . Yet.
Click to expand...
I don't know what assumptions you're making to reach that conclusion, and you don't state your assumptions, which is another reason this is cranky.

I don't think you have any idea what is required for anything to "give off light energy", either.

I think you're just making this stuff up, using some scientific-sounding buzz words. Why waste everybody's time?

Such as Galaxies .
Click to expand...
A sentence fragment unconnected to anything that went before. Nobody can comment on this, because it doesn't mean anything.
 
Please do not troll.
The electron is the wave , the proton and the sub-particles that make up the proton are the particles .
Click to expand...
This is nonsense. Both electrons and protons are quantum particles, with both wave-like and particle-like properties. It makes no sense in modern physics to say that protons are particles while electrons are waves.
Click to expand...

I'm going deeper than the quantum .

Quantum is the organisation of both particle and the wave .

What I'm thinking is essence of both particle , wave , wave , particle . In no particular order . Both have existed at the same moment of existence . For infinity .
 
Last edited:
Enough. This thread is done.

The trolling has gone far enough. Our membership has better things to do than to entertain trolls, who just want to drag them into an endless, inane conversation about nonsense.

Moderator note:

river has received a warning for trolling. Due to accumulated warning points, he will be taking a break from sciforums.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top