I need time dilation help please?

and put the minus value where it says strong nuclear force and you have my answer that fits your diagram. Logic and rational thought suggest I am correct on the basis that + and + repel each other. Experiment, metal expansion and gas expansions of charged +ions shows I am correct.

The + and + only applies to the electrostatic force.

As @Peroxidation said, it's the 'colour' of the quark that defines whether they attract or repel - my diagram shows a green and a blue quark (I think it's RGB?) and as the colours are different, they attract.

By ''colour'' you mean charge surely because something that is highly charged glows ''orange''.

There is no logic in that a quark or proton is a positive, the proton is a negative that emits a positive electron shell. When energy is added the electron shell expands repelling other electron shells to cause expansion. Your experiments show me this so my query stands without an answer thus far.

No. 'Colour' is a property (not a physical colour) that has no correlation with charge (afaik)



No... what are you saying? Everything you say is either disproved or nonsensical and I don't understand how you fail to see that

You are using ambiguity, your failure to teach is your poor wording

You are using ambiguity, your failure to teach is your poor wording , colour means colour it can't mean colour and mean something else,

Only dark and light exist, atoms are dark and light, you clearly have no idea of what you are talking about and mentioning colour.

HE is ambiguous?! Try listening to yourself. You contradict yourself constantly. Your argument is poorly formed with little to no evidence whatsoever.
For the colour = only colour and nothing else statement, stop being ridiculous. A word can have more than one meaning, charge means electrical charge AND for one to be charged (with a sentence or a cost). I stopped replying to you because your arguments are on a complete tangent to your question.
Please formulate a real argument then return, but for now stop trying to disprove a proven occurrence with haphazard arguments and theories with no rigor. Please.

I simply want answers to my questions which again people fail to provide.

What length is it from the Earth to , next to the furthest away visual point. That means the blackness background of space.

Just dipping back in to add that you have had answers (a thousand times over) to any questions you asked that were not nonsensical.

if you do want answers to your questions then you really need to formulate better questions. This question is meaningless nonsense

The question is in English.

How about translating it to science or maths?

what is the length of space between the observer and nothing ?

Undefined

So you mean n?

No! I mean undefined because the question is undefined

I put to you that the Universe is N-dimensional and the visual Universe is simply an XYZ dimension of relativity that occupies the n-dimensional universe.

A multi-dimensional universe is not a new theory.