 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate whi |
|
Page 5 of 7 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| a_plutonium |
 Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
So I have travelled a long road in this past 16 years with the Atom
Totality. About 13 years on in that road I found a Unification of all
the forces of physics as a Coulomb force, where every force is a
Coulomb manifestation, and the Atom Totality theory helps in that
explanation. However, I never had a clear picture of gravity as how it
could be a Coulomb force until this year, 16 years on. And the picture
that emerged was Space is the Dirac Sea of Positrons which magnetically
attracts to all the mass and matter in the observable universe. And
considering all the mass and matter are pieces of the electrons of the
Atom Totality, hence the magnetic attraction and hence the force of
gravity.
But it now comes to the point where I have to do some careful thinking
as to this concept of "nested". If all mass matter we see such as the
Sun, planets, stars and galaxies are atoms, then how could this
collection of atoms in a larger view be seen as electrons of the Atom
Totality? And if that is true, then are protons of the Atom Totality a
huge collection of atoms inside the proton? And what about the Dirac
Sea of Positrons that make up Space? Is it a huge collection of
antiprotons and antielectrons and antiatoms?
So I have big problems on my hand. On the one hand I an solve old
problems easily with the Atom Totality and especially solving gravity.
But on the other hand, new problems emerge such as this "nesting"
problem.
So I have two choices I could take. I could say that every proton and
electron is a composite particle of atoms. Or I could say that the Atom
Totality is a special atom and has a nested function.
I must review the basic parameters of atoms. One of them is time and
temperature and I can solve those as "the arrangement of the particles
for which the whole is made of " So as the arrangement changes, the
parameter of "time" is borne.
But what is the basic parameter of "charge" all about? How can I
describe "charge" in terms of other aspects of atoms? Is charge
something to do with the shape of an atom or particle? Is it the
geometry of an atom or particle? If I can figure out what charge is in
most basic form, then I maybe able to reconcile that Electrons can be
composed of atoms. And to say that Earth, even though it is mostly
neutral in charge overall and composed of many atoms, that it is a
piece of the Electron of the Atom Totality.
I think I can say that because the alternative is less satisfying. The
alternative is to say that a proton or electron is a particle for which
it cannot be composed of atoms. This is less satisfying because it says
that a proton is merely a blob with a positive charge and a given rest
mass. So that is not saying much at all. Whereas if I say a proton is a
large collection of atoms inside the proton would have more things to
work with.
And I am looking for other areas of physics where a concept of nested
is vital. Is there someplace in QM where "nested" is needed? Can we say
the Complementarity Principle or the Superposition Principle have the
concept of "nested" built into them? Duality in Quatum Mechanics, is
that a call for "nested", in that the particle is nested in the wave
and vice versa? Or that electricity is nested inside magnetism and vice
versa.
And in logic and mathematics, is there a concept of "nested" that seems
vital for the subject? One can consider Aristotlinean Logic as linear
logic and not circular logic but is there a logic which has a nested
feature?
So that in an Atom Totality, where a person is standing on a planet
that is composed of many atoms and which is a tiny part of an electron
in the Atom Totality, and this person is holding atoms in his hand, the
question comes as to whether those atoms are themselves composed of
protons and electrons which have more atoms inside themselves.
So, I solve all the old problems of physics with the Atom Totality, but
I am faced with brand new problems that do not make sense at this time.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| FrediFizzx |
| Posted: Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kou5n2prearpptqf8qp46no7oasmlojo23@4ax.com...
[quote:4c614058ba]On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 18:21:34 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:5sm3n29easmo8gq6cafordrp5eiitj9f39@4ax.com...
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 08:31:12 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote:
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bv53n293rn02rnu9tk856oti1dp0t0a822@4ax.com...
On 1 Dec 2006 11:45:56 -0800, "a_plutonium"
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
On 30 Nov 2006 19:42:42 -0800, "a_plutonium"
a_plutonium@hotmail.com
wrote:
John C. Polasek wrote:
(snipped)
Dirac deduced a sea of electrons simply from the minus sign
in
the
total energy equation. He did very little with it.
John Polasek
You meant to say "sea of positrons".
No I meant a sea of electrons, look it up in Eisberg for
example.
An
electron, when removed, left a "hole".
Well that is your logical error isn't it. Dirac's Sea was logical
inference from available knowledge-- Maxwell Equations,
Schrodinger
and
Dirac Equations, Energy formulas.
We are arguing history here, but the Maxwell equations etc. did
not
inspire Dirac with his sea of electrons. His total energy equation
purported to describe the total energy of electrons and to
quantize
their energies, (again see Eisberg), and, seeing the minus sign
next
to the radical, decided to do something about it.
I went after the vacuum to see how it could possibly have
8.8uuF/meter
and as a result, I have the vacuum entirely blueprinted.
Sorry, John. You don't have it entirely blueprinted. You entirely
ignore the QCD "vacuum". But your approach is on the right track.
Sure I do Fredi. My pair cell is alpha times the Compton wavelength
and when its electron escapes and expands by 1/alpha or, cubed, by
2.5
million, its density becomes equal to that of iron. Electrons out of
pairspace expand with enough energy to support the density of iron
at
the velocity of light. In Ch. 13 of the book I show how the
continuing
emission of electrons to make stars generates a CMBR temperat;ure of
2.557K vs the "book" 2.724.
What's QCD?
Quantum ChromoDynamics. ;-)
Dirac did not go further than monopole and Dirac Sea and
positrons,
because he did not have a Atom Totality theory.
As for yours, well, it is not science theory, it is not science
hypothesis, it is merely a "complaint". You do not even list your
basis
theory for which you think you have something new to say to
physics.
Apparently your base theory is the Big Bang but you do not even
credit
Big Bang, perhaps because you are scared that the Big Bang will
fall
also.
You did not look at my #1 paper at my website. It explains exactly
how
the vacuum is constructed. There are 16 equations or equation
groups.
Pick one and tell what's wrong with it.
My theory does away with the Big Bang but you would not know that;
it's in the book.
Your density is way too low.  Include the QCD "vacuum" and you
will
find a much higher density.
Pairspace density is 4.1x10^10 kg/m^3.
What is your density? Looking at your papers, I don't see the word
density and I don't see any numbers at all, just formulas without
units. In cgs you have to be careful, because the units were wrecked
by the Visigoths who threw out eps0 and mu0. (You can't use coulombs
or volts or farads).
What is your QCD density, numbers and equation?
Now don't forget I am talking about pairspace, the land of the
uncreated, whose electrons after N billion years become our periodic
table and a lot of cooking will have ocurred to make all those
hadrons. Apples and oranges maybe.
We had this discussion before and I think I gave you a rough estimate
that was about 10^18 greater than your pairspace density.
My cell Lambda (or L) is 3.5e-14m. See my Eq. 5-35 where I derive eps
in 7 different ways. This one has only L as an unknown:
eps0 = e^2/Lmc^2 so that
e^2/eps0*L = mc^2 = potential energy of electron at L radius
The cell contains mc^2. (The 4pi is missing because this is a cubic
cell not a spherically symmetric case). the electron is still
"virtual" (uncreated) here. The density m/L^3 = 4e10 kg/m^3 has plenty
of authenticity.
Do a
googlegroup search on my handle and your name. You should be able to
figure it out from the vacuum expectation value of about 246 GeV.
"The vacuum expectation value" is defined how?
[/quote:4c614058ba]
From the Fermi Coupling Constant,
G_F/(hbar*c)^3 = 1.16637 ×10^-5 GeV^-2
Your theory so far totally ignores this constant. It can't be ignored
in any sensible theory that deals with the "vacuum". There is more to
the "vacuum" than just eps0 and mu0. The Fermi Coupling Constant is
proof of that.
[quote:4c614058ba]Is that the discussion where I mentioned that you might be confusing
246GeV of effort with 246GeV of results? That still goes. As I showed,
total energy can be factored into
TE = Mc*sqrt(v^2 + c^2) = mc* BIGC
to make clear where gamma applies and it is to make a velocity (BIGC)
greater than c, and in the 246GeV case, vastly larger than c. A big M
can help, but it's still bogus. You can't expect very much of the
246GeV to be effective if the target is nearly at the speed of light.
Dual Space theory and common sense say this can't happen. But you and
QCD think it can.
[/quote:4c614058ba]
What you are doing above has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
Get yourself a good particle physics textbook.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I would say the world of physics has been mostly asleep behind the
wheel for the past 30 years when Dirac stated these:
--- quoting page 46 Directions in Physics, Dirac, 1978 ---
There is one argument in favor of the existence of these monopoles,
namely, that they would provide an explanation for why electric charge
is always quantized. With all the particles observed in Nature, the
electric charge is an integral multiple, positive or negative, of e
(the charge on the electron). Now, why should that be so? Why could
there not be quite different values for the charge occurring for
certain particles?
Well, there is no theoretical explanation for this fact, except for
this theory of magnetic monopoles.
--- end quoting ---
This is what I mean by the beauty of physics and math when done
properly, in that they logically work together to deliver the truths of
Nature, and whenever Dirac saw one of these "chunks of consistency" he
realized they were of immense importance.
To give an answer to monopoles would lead me to solve the force of
gravity.
Logically, if the only thing in all of physics that says electric
charge is quantized if you have the existence of at least one monopole
in the Universe, well, you better believe at least one monopole exists.
I read further on where Dirac describes a Price experiment with Lexan
etchings to see if monopole trail can be discovered. And Dirac called
Alvarez over this Price experiment but Alvarez was skeptical. Perhaps
Alvarez at that moment in his life was more focused on meteors
extincting dinosaurs than on fundamental physics. I do not know how the
Price Lexan experiment ever turned out.
But I think that in an Atom Totality theory, whereas Dirac had only a
Big Bang theory to work in, that the entire Space which we think of as
a Cosmic vacuum. That entire Space is one gigantic monopole of the
Dirac Sea of Positrons.
So no wonder Dirac never held witness to a monopole because the entire
Space in which mass and matter is embedded in the Atom Totality is one
gigantic monopole.
Experiments have proven that the Vacuum of Space contains positrons and
these as a collective sum total is a + charged monopole.
I do not know if anyone is doing experiments after Price to find
monopoles, or whether anyone is doing experiments on the vacuum of
Space to elicit positrons.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 4:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Now I am not sure if all of Space as a Sea of Positrons is considered a
monopole of + charge, I am not sure that the Universe needs a second
monopole existing somewhere. Whether all the electrons of the Atom
Totality would constitute a second monopole as - charged.
You see, the theory that Dirac spells out on his page 46 Directions in
Physics enunciates the existence of at least one monopole in all the
Universe. Whether 2 monopoles are required is not elucidated by Dirac.
I suppose I can look upon the observational data as for any clue. If
there is some vast matter to antimatter annihilation taking place in
the Cosmos would point to the existence of 2 monopoles. Perhaps this is
what is occurring in the case of quasar energies. That quasars are so
gravitationally dense stars that they begin to envelope the Space in
which they occupy and thus bring into contact positrons of the Space in
annihilation with electrons of mass of the quasar star. So the energy
of quasars are likely to be matter-antimatter annihilation due to
strong gravity. If that is true, then the Cosmos has at least 2
monopoles-- Sea of Positrons that constitues Space itself and secondly
all the mass and matter we see is part of another monopole.
I would hazard to guess that there must exist at least 2 monopoles.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:2728e2f481]
I read further on where Dirac describes a Price experiment with Lexan
etchings to see if monopole trail can be discovered. And Dirac called
Alvarez over this Price experiment but Alvarez was skeptical. Perhaps
Alvarez at that moment in his life was more focused on meteors
extincting dinosaurs than on fundamental physics. I do not know how the
Price Lexan experiment ever turned out.
[/quote:2728e2f481]
--- quoting http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v35/i17/p1167_1 ---
Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1167 - 1169 (1975)
[Issue 17 - October 1975]
Comments on the Reported Observation of a Monopole
M. W. Friedlander
McD. Center for Space Sciences and Department of Physics,
Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130
Received 25 August 1975
It is shown that the cosmic-ray event recently interpreted as the track
of a Dirac monopole can instead be plausibly described in terms of the
interaction of an ultraheavy cosmic-ray nucleus, having Z~96 and
velocity ~0.72c.
Original: P. B. Price, E. K. Shirk, W. Z. Osborne, and L. S. Pinsky,
Evidence for Detection of a Moving Magnetic Monopole, Phys. Rev. Lett.
35, 487 (1975)
--- end quoting http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v35/i17/p1167_1 ---
Funny, Dirac did not give the full name of Price in his book so had to
search it up.
I wonder if Price is still alive. I know Dirac is deceased.
But if Price is still alive and in good thinking condition, whether
someone can put the question to him--- suppose Space is the Dirac Sea
of Positrons and would that Space being all + charged, constitute a
magnetic monopole?
Then put this question to Price, given an Atom Totality theory where
all mass and matter that we see in stars and galaxies and planets is
all parts and pieces of the electron mass of the Atom Totality, and
would that constitute another magnetic monopole, that is a negative
charged magnetic monopole?
It is best to ask the old guard of physics who actually worked and had
history on the subject. And I suppose Alvarez is also deceased. But the
book also mentions a professor George in Syndey. Are all these people
deceased?
Surely there must be someone alive who is carrying on the search for
magnetic monopoles. Because according to the Atom Totality theory, a
magnetic monopole is not to be found amoung the stars and galaxies but
is to be found as a cosmic phenomenon, and involving the vastness of
Space itself. That Space is a magnetic monopole.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On page 45 Dirac derives the force strength of the magnetic monopole as
u = (hc/2e)n from the Schrodinger Equation and which then resolves into
u = (137/2) e for n equal to 1.
Now the force strength as coupling constant of the Coulomb force is
10^-2 when StrongNuclear is 1.
Now if we assume that Space of a single electron is composed of a Dirac
Sea of Positrons then the Coulomb force of that single electron becomes
equal to the StrongNuclear force.
Dirac makes a math argument for the existence of a magnetic monopole by
saying that the Quantization of electric charge always holds true from
u = (hc/2e)n.
But now that we can picture the magnetic monopole as the space
surrounding an electron where that Space is a sea of positrons and thus
the force of gravity, we also have a geometrical explanation of the
quantization of electric charge. Since every electron is accompanied by
a Space in which that electron is embedded, then electric charge is
always quantized for you cannot have a electron without its
accompanying space.
And you also have as a result that the strength of the Coulomb force
with its additional sea of positron Space now equals the same as the
strength of the StrongNuclear force.
Yes sir, this thing is coming together all neat and nice.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:1fb78e9867]On page 45 Dirac derives the force strength of the magnetic monopole as
u = (hc/2e)n from the Schrodinger Equation and which then resolves into
u = (137/2) e for n equal to 1.
Now the force strength as coupling constant of the Coulomb force is
10^-2 when StrongNuclear is 1.
Now if we assume that Space of a single electron is composed of a Dirac
Sea of Positrons then the Coulomb force of that single electron becomes
equal to the StrongNuclear force.
Dirac makes a math argument for the existence of a magnetic monopole by
saying that the Quantization of electric charge always holds true from
u = (hc/2e)n.
But now that we can picture the magnetic monopole as the space
surrounding an electron where that Space is a sea of positrons and thus
the force of gravity, we also have a geometrical explanation of the
quantization of electric charge. Since every electron is accompanied by
a Space in which that electron is embedded, then electric charge is
always quantized for you cannot have a electron without its
accompanying space.
And you also have as a result that the strength of the Coulomb force
with its additional sea of positron Space now equals the same as the
strength of the StrongNuclear force.
[/quote:1fb78e9867]
--- Quoting Feynman's page 2-10 Lectures on Physics ---
Table 2-3 Elementary Interactions
Coupling Strength Law
Photon to charged particles approx 10^-2 Law known
Gravity to all energy approx 10^-40 Law known
Weak decays appox 10^-5 Law partly known
Mesons to baryons approx 1 Law unknown (some rules
known)
The "strength" is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant
--- end quoting Feynman's book page 2-10 ---
The trouble with the above is that Feynman never had a Unified Field
theory where all the forces become a Coulomb force and where gravity is
seen as simply a very mild Coulomb force and where gravity is
consolidated with quantum mechanics. The way that is done is that
gravity is a phenomenon resulting from the fact that Space itself is a
Sea of Positrons and the +attraction of positrons for negative charged
electrons (all the cosmic mass and matter since it is all bits and
pieces of the electrons of the Atom Totality) results in gravity.
So the correction to the above table is the combining of Coulomb with
gravity and the simple addition of (hc/2e)n + 0.01 for gravity +
Coulomb = approx 1
For StrongNuclear + WeakNuclear, where this force is the *nuclear
electron*, then we have 1 + 0.00001 which is approx equal to 1.
So the world consists only of Coulomb forces and if those Coulomb
forces reside in the nucleus of an atom, whether a normal regular atom
or the Atom Totality, then this nuclear-Coulomb can be seen as either
StrongNuclear or WeakNuclear or both.
If the attention is for the electrons held together in electron-space
outside the nucleus of atoms, then the forces there are the Coulomb and
the Sea of Positrons in which those electrons reside cause a force
which we call gravity.
Now to prove the above, I simply need to set up an experiment that
shows us that there is no force of gravity residing inside the nucleus
of atoms. Why? Because the nucleus of atoms does not have this magnetic
monopole of Space, of a Sea of Positrons. Only the
electron-space-region of atoms has this Sea of Positrons that causes
the force of gravity.
Now we remember from college chemistry that the alkali metals such as
Cs, Rb, are huge in size compared to iron cobalt nickel. But that is
the electron space of atoms and radii. What I want is Nuclear-Radii.
And if there is a force of gravity existing in nucleus of atoms, then
the nuclear radii should vary in agreement with electronic radii. So
here is the opportunity to set up an experiment that proves there is no
force of gravity inside the nuclear region of atoms. In my next post I
shall outline this experiment.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:481beeefc6]a_plutonium wrote:
On page 45 Dirac derives the force strength of the magnetic monopole as
u = (hc/2e)n from the Schrodinger Equation and which then resolves into
u = (137/2) e for n equal to 1.
Now the force strength as coupling constant of the Coulomb force is
10^-2 when StrongNuclear is 1.
Now if we assume that Space of a single electron is composed of a Dirac
Sea of Positrons then the Coulomb force of that single electron becomes
equal to the StrongNuclear force.
Dirac makes a math argument for the existence of a magnetic monopole by
saying that the Quantization of electric charge always holds true from
u = (hc/2e)n.
But now that we can picture the magnetic monopole as the space
surrounding an electron where that Space is a sea of positrons and thus
the force of gravity, we also have a geometrical explanation of the
quantization of electric charge. Since every electron is accompanied by
a Space in which that electron is embedded, then electric charge is
always quantized for you cannot have a electron without its
accompanying space.
And you also have as a result that the strength of the Coulomb force
with its additional sea of positron Space now equals the same as the
strength of the StrongNuclear force.
--- Quoting Feynman's page 2-10 Lectures on Physics ---
Table 2-3 Elementary Interactions
Coupling Strength Law
Photon to charged particles approx 10^-2 Law known
Gravity to all energy approx 10^-40 Law known
Weak decays appox 10^-5 Law partly known
Mesons to baryons approx 1 Law unknown (some rules
known)
The "strength" is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant
--- end quoting Feynman's book page 2-10 ---
The trouble with the above is that Feynman never had a Unified Field
theory where all the forces become a Coulomb force and where gravity is
seen as simply a very mild Coulomb force and where gravity is
consolidated with quantum mechanics. The way that is done is that
gravity is a phenomenon resulting from the fact that Space itself is a
Sea of Positrons and the +attraction of positrons for negative charged
electrons (all the cosmic mass and matter since it is all bits and
pieces of the electrons of the Atom Totality) results in gravity.
So the correction to the above table is the combining of Coulomb with
gravity and the simple addition of (hc/2e)n + 0.01 for gravity +
Coulomb = approx 1
For StrongNuclear + WeakNuclear, where this force is the *nuclear
electron*, then we have 1 + 0.00001 which is approx equal to 1.
So the world consists only of Coulomb forces and if those Coulomb
forces reside in the nucleus of an atom, whether a normal regular atom
or the Atom Totality, then this nuclear-Coulomb can be seen as either
StrongNuclear or WeakNuclear or both.
If the attention is for the electrons held together in electron-space
outside the nucleus of atoms, then the forces there are the Coulomb and
the Sea of Positrons in which those electrons reside cause a force
which we call gravity.
Now to prove the above, I simply need to set up an experiment that
shows us that there is no force of gravity residing inside the nucleus
of atoms. Why? Because the nucleus of atoms does not have this magnetic
monopole of Space, of a Sea of Positrons. Only the
electron-space-region of atoms has this Sea of Positrons that causes
the force of gravity.
Now we remember from college chemistry that the alkali metals such as
Cs, Rb, are huge in size compared to iron cobalt nickel. But that is
the electron space of atoms and radii. What I want is Nuclear-Radii.
And if there is a force of gravity existing in nucleus of atoms, then
the nuclear radii should vary in agreement with electronic radii. So
here is the opportunity to set up an experiment that proves there is no
force of gravity inside the nuclear region of atoms. In my next post I
shall outline this experiment.
[/quote:481beeefc6]
I took the liberty to adding the newsgroup sci.physics.particle since
the main thrust of the argument will be to show that of particle
physics account balance of energy in collision particles.
I may get away with another experiment that proves the gravity particle
called a graviton does not exist in physics collisions.
Anyway here is the outline: When we do collision experiments where we
want to increase the atomic number of a atom by colliding it with other
atoms or neutrons, and if the force of gravity exists in the nuclear
region, then the creation of a new atom of higher atomic number should
be easier to obtain due to the tiny force of gravity. And likewise,
when we want to break apart a heavy atomic number atom a tiny bit more
energy is required in the transaction to break apart the force of
gravity of that nucleus.
So you can kind of see where I am going. That you need a tiny bit less
energy to build a new atom of higher atomic number, say hydrogen going
into helium, and quite a bit more energy when we want to split apart an
atom into smaller atomic numbered atoms, say helium into hydrogen
atoms. The more or less energy is to compensate for the force of
gravity (if it exists in the nucleus).
Our modern day physics devices should be amply refined to be able to
distinguish whether this tiny bit more or less energy is involved in
building or breaking up of nuclei.
I am not aware of any numbers data but I suspect the above experiment
has already been performed and no attention paid to the fact that a
tiny amount of energy was never accounted for. It was sweep under the
carpet and said that it was within "experimental error". But if a good
team of experimental physicists would reopen this issue of whether
gravity exists inside the nucleus or does not exist, then I think some
great new physics will be opened.
Now there are probably other experiments that can prove whether gravity
exists or does not exist inside the nucleus, but the above is the most
straightforward in my belief.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Phineas T Puddleduck |
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1165953561.435107.107510@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"a_plutonium" <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote:
[quote:a1f99a4fad]I took the liberty to adding the newsgroup sci.physics.particle since
the main thrust of the argument will be to show that of particle
physics account balance of energy in collision particles.
[/quote:a1f99a4fad]
I took the liberty of adding alt.usenet.kooks as you are mad
--
Just \int_0^\infty du it!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2006 6:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I wrote a few minutes ago:
(huge snips)
[quote:e5b9990ced]So you can kind of see where I am going. That you need a tiny bit less
energy to build a new atom of higher atomic number, say hydrogen going
into helium, and quite a bit more energy when we want to split apart an
atom into smaller atomic numbered atoms, say helium into hydrogen
atoms. The more or less energy is to compensate for the force of
gravity (if it exists in the nucleus).
Our modern day physics devices should be amply refined to be able to
distinguish whether this tiny bit more or less energy is involved in
building or breaking up of nuclei.
I am not aware of any numbers data but I suspect the above experiment
has already been performed and no attention paid to the fact that a
tiny amount of energy was never accounted for. It was sweep under the
carpet and said that it was within "experimental error". But if a good
team of experimental physicists would reopen this issue of whether
gravity exists inside the nucleus or does not exist, then I think some
great new physics will be opened.
[/quote:e5b9990ced]
I reposted to sci.astro because the Sun already is a huge experiment
that would prove one way or the other. Previous post I included
sci.physics.particle thinking that a particle accelerator or even
fusion tokamak machines may be able to pinpoint the small amount of
less or greater than energy accounting.
But I think the Sun itself in a simple observational physics test can
provide the answer.
You see, if gravity does not exist in the nucleus of atoms, then the
amount of helium in our Sun is biased in favor of more helium than in
hydrogen given the time of the Sun's fusion process. If gravity does
not exist in nuclei of atoms would favor the larger buildup of helium
rather than the reverse of breakup of helium into hydrogen atoms. For
it is easier and less energy for hydrogen atoms to buildup into a
helium atom than for a helium atom to split apart into hydrogen atoms.
If gravity exists in the nuclei of atoms then there is no favoritism,
but if gravity does not exist then there is a slight favoritism to
buildup heavier nuclei than for there is to split apart.
So by careful examination of the Sun or Stars what we should find is a
tiny slight increase of helium atoms for which all the other theories
cannot account for, except this idea that gravity does not exist in the
nuclei of atoms.
And there is another experiment involving uranium. The amount of
uranium in the Universe is a large amount compared to the preceding
elements. The cosmic abundance of uranium is a conundrum. However, if
one considers the amount of cosmic abundance of Ac before thorium and
of Pa before uranium would suggest that if no gravity exists in the
nuclear region of atoms then these abundances make sense.
But I think the Sun is our best lab, and to find out if there is a
small number of more helium atoms than that accounted for by stellar
dynamics.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
[quote:9ea050b398]
So you can kind of see where I am going. That you need a tiny bit less
energy to build a new atom of higher atomic number, say hydrogen going
into helium, and quite a bit more energy when we want to split apart an
atom into smaller atomic numbered atoms, say helium into hydrogen
atoms. The more or less energy is to compensate for the force of
gravity (if it exists in the nucleus).
Now the force of gravity in the nucleus, contrary to most people's[/quote:9ea050b398]
idea is very strong in the nucleus because of the small distance and
because of the large mass of the protons and neutrons that reside in
the nucleus. So that there should be evidence of gravity by the number
of isotopes of Iron above and below stable iron of 56Fe.
So I looked up the isotopes of iron from this website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_iron
And found that there are 14 isotopes below 56Fe and 19 above.
Now I wonder if in all chemistry and physics whether the number of
isotopes above the stable element are always greater in number than the
isotopes below in mass?
This does not look good for my hypothesis that gravity does not exist
in the nucleus of atoms. If gravity does not exist in the nucleus
(which I firmly believe is true as now), then the number of isotopes
above and below should be almost equal in quantity. Sort of a
conservation of isotopic number or a quantization of isotopic number.
So it looks bad for my hypothesis that no gravity exists in the nucleus
of atoms since there is no Space of a sea of positrons to create the
force of gravity.
However, I suspect I am overlooking some mechanism which would answer
why Iron has 14 isotopes below 56Fe and 19 above. Perhaps I am
forgetting about the WeakNuclear force and if I factored in the
WeakNuclear Force then the isotopic number should be equal of above and
below 56Fe. And if that is the case, then that is supporting evidence
that gravity as a force does not exist in the nucleus of atoms.
Yes, I do suspect I had forgotten the WeakNuclear force.
And I had a look as to the state of knowledge of nuclear radii. I was
not expecting much and the search came up with only primitive findings.
The fact is that we have little to no reliable knowledge of nuclear
radii. If we had a reliable data of nuclear radii, then we may easily
solve the question of whether a force of gravity exists in nuclear
region.
And I am willing to resort back to the idea of an experiment based on
the fact of never any indication of the existence of gravitons. I think
that when we do particle physics of high collision energy decay that a
small amount of measurable energy due to the uncoupling of the gravity
force of the particles should have been seen a long time ago. That the
force of gravity in the nuclear region is sizable because of the close
proximity of massive protons and neutrons.
As for isotopes above and below the stable element, I have to find out
if beyond iron there are more isotopes below. And if below iron there
are more isotopes above. And that would be due to the WeakNuclear
force. So if I can work that out, then I would still have the claim
that no gravity exists in the nucleus.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 6:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
[quote:c091388a3d]
However, I suspect I am overlooking some mechanism which would answer
why Iron has 14 isotopes below 56Fe and 19 above. Perhaps I am
forgetting about the WeakNuclear force and if I factored in the
WeakNuclear Force then the isotopic number should be equal of above and
below 56Fe. And if that is the case, then that is supporting evidence
that gravity as a force does not exist in the nucleus of atoms.
Yes, I do suspect I had forgotten the WeakNuclear force.
Well worse yet is that I neglected the abundance of those isotopes.[/quote:c091388a3d]
Relative abundance is more pertinent than numbers of isotopes above and
below the stable element.
I did some further checking as to a pattern that before Iron there are
more isotopes above such as hydrogen has 6 above and 0 below and helium
has 6 above and 1 below and lead has 73 below and 12 above. But numbers
of isotopes above and below are not important, what is important is the
abundance of those isotopes above and below.
So if there is a force of gravity in the nucleus of atoms then the
abundance of isotopes should be in favor of above and not below for
elements beyond iron. As it turns out, the abundance of isotopes is in
favor of below. So that indicates to me, factoring in WeakNuclear
force, that atoms have no force of gravity within the nuclear region.
That there is no force of gravity in the nucleus of atoms.
If there was a force of gravity in the nucleus of atoms then the cosmic
abundance of isotopes greater than 207Pb should be far more abundant
than the abundance of isotopes below 207Pb.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Now I could be wrong but I think the Nagamine muon catalyzed fusion
experiments indicates no surplus of energy when going from hydrogen to
helium and going from helium to hydrogen.
I remember the number 2/3 breakeven is a "tight" number where
Nagamine's experiments achieved exactly 2/3 and not a tiny bit more or
less. So I think that this experiment is already a proof that gravity
does not exist in the nuclei of atoms. If it exists then the small
energy of gravity of muons should favor fusion.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| a_plutonium |
| Posted: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Uncle Al wrote:
[quote:d8e2617092]a_plutonium wrote:
Let me provide the background first. To unify all the forces of physics
then gravity becomes a Coulomb force in the Atom Totality.
[snip cap]
Idiot. Electromagnetism propagates as spin-1 zero rest mass vector
bosons. Gravitation, if it is quantized at all, propagates as spin-2
zero rest mass tensor bosons.
[/quote:d8e2617092]
When gravity is seen as a secondary offshoot of the fact that Space is
a Sea of Positrons (a plus charged magnetic monopole) which asserts a
magnetic attraction to mass/matter.
When you see gravity as a Spatial Coulomb attraction for mass, then
there is no spin-2 zero rest mass tensor boson. Then there is no
graviton particle.
The trouble with physics in the 20th century was a building of layers
and layers of false theories from Standard Model to General Relativity
and false theories lead to layers and layers of epicycles just like
Ptolemy geocentric theory.
General Relativity made the huge mistake of using and requiring the
term *space*, but never bothered to define space. Mathematicians are
routinely taken out to the wood shed and given a thorough thrashing
whenever they neglect to define essential terms in theories. But
somehow, physicists and mathematicians ignored the term/concept of
Space in General Relativity.
So when GR says "mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature
of that bent space" they forgot to say what space is. Do they think and
expect others to think Space is some empty vacuum.
Then Dirac gave us the theoretical understanding of the Sea of
Positrons and Blackett and Anderson experimentally proved that Space is
a Sea of Positrons.
So, there you have it. A unified field theory and a correcting of the
old foggy notions of General Relativity that forgets to even define its
concept of Space. No wonder fools ran around looking for a spin 2
graviton particle.
When people in physics cannot even recognize that their terms and
concepts in a theory have never been defined and are muddy, dirty and
ill conceived, it is no wonder that they then plaster onto this dirty
theory more dirt of a graviton.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Proginoskes |
| Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2006 6:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium wrote:
[quote:b595ff7a2e](most snipped)
Now the supposed gravitational energy of a heavy dense nucleus of a
heavy element would be a very small energy if it existed. So small that
there would not be photon emission of this amount of energy. So those
glowing elements such as radium would not be glowing due to
gravitational energy.
The energy I seek, if gravity existed would be such a tiny amount of
energy that it would be say "radio frequency". Sort of like squecks or
noise type of energy. And I do not recall of anyone or any experiment
trying to find a "tiny bit of energy due to gravity".
So that is why I think it is important to focus on the rate of decay.
Because rate of decay is another window into the nucleus and can
measure this "tiny amount of gravity energy if it exists"
So if gravity exists in the nucleus of atoms or isotopes, then it would
favor fusion and not fission. And this tiny amount of energy would make
it easier to fuse than to split apart atoms. And thus a tiny amount of
time for decay rates should provide proof.
If gravity exists inside nucleus of atoms, then decay rates for fission
should be a smaller time than decay rates for fusion and that heavier
nuclei should have a longer half-life. And the longer amount of time
corresponding to that tiny amount of force of gravity.
Since none of the above is shown true by experiments and by the data.
Then one has to conclude that the force of gravity does not exist
inside the nuclear region of atoms and isotopes.
[/quote:b595ff7a2e]
It is claimed by a series of books that our universe is inhabited by
pandimensional beings which in our dimensions manifest themselves as
"mice". These so-called "mice" are currently running a program (called
The Earth) which is to determine what the question to Life, the
Universe, and Everything is. They of course know that the answer is 42,
since 6*9=42 in base thirteen. (I posted earlier why thirteen should be
taken to be the base to be used in all scientific calculations; see my
webpage for more details.)
This manifestation of these creatures occurs in other ways, it is
alleged. This is due to the fact that the natural satellite which
orbits the computer known as The Earth (known as The Moon --- the
satellite that is, not the computer) contains, on its surface, cheese.
This was in fact verified when astronauts brought back samples of Moon
"rocks" from the surface of that satellite which turned out to taste
inexplicably like cheddar, limburger, etc. etc. etc. This was covered
up, and the Moon "rocks" (you will know now why I enclose that word in
quotation marks) were stated to be the same as Earth "rocks"; however,
one needs to realize that NASA was not using the normal definition of
the word "rock" in this case. Thus a key to the conspiracy slipped by
everyone else's minds (which were further degenerated by the so-called
Mozzarella Wars (q.v.)).
What is not known about these so-called "mice" is that they can
manifest themselves in any conceivable size; certainly everyone is
familar with mice on the scale of 42 Atom Totality Distance Units
(again the mysterious forty-two manifests itself!), with some seen with
a multiplicative factor of up to 8. Recently, however, in Rendlesham,
England, some of these creatures of the size 4.3*13^6 Atom Totality
Distance Units were witnessed. This was covered up by the story that a
"flying saucer" had crashed at a nearby military base.
The existence of such large creatures suggests that small creatures (by
that multiplicative factor) must also exist. In fact, since the
strength (as measured in Atom Totality Strength Units) of an object is
quadratically proportional to its size, we should expect these
intelligent creatures to manifest themselves at an even smaller size.
Such discoveries do not reach the newspapers of the average homo
sapiens, but they do in fact exist; some of these "mice" could in fact
be engulfed by an average-sized amoeba.
Recent discoveries at the Plank-distance-level have suggested that such
mice can even manifest themselves at this particular distance, which
would enable them to fit inside the nucleus of an atom. The presence of
such advanced creatures can be observed by shifts in the frequency of
light emitted during beta particle decay, the amount of heat released
upon such an event, and audible squeaking on the order of 6*13^-8 Atom
Totality Sound-Volume Units.
Research continues.
Athanasius Carbon
www.iw.net/~a_carbon
my whole brain is just one big atom of Plutonium
where the electron-dot-clouds are slices of cheese |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 2:13 am
|
|