Borson

I figured rest mass right after I gave thought to it. (Haven't had time to respond). Energy is a property of mass, not a property of the empty space in a system, right? (This is what I'm failing to understand, why wouldn't energy radiate...[light bulb]. Such energy needs mass to radiate to (as you can't have energy without mass)). So is the energy radiating from the nucleus to the electrons what keeps them from falling into the nucleus? I withdraw. Thanks for your time.

Is the sun equally energetic within, or does it have a hotter, energetic core, radiating outward? Is that not described by molecular thermal expansion (which is why I chose the name). Is energy kinetic motion? Is that not most prevailing in the nucleus (compared to electrons and other space in the atom)? Does energy not tend to radiate from higher concentrations to low concentrations in general? If energy was equal throughout, would it not imply motion of particles equal throughout? Such that nuclear particles should equally be distributed in the atom as well? Additionally, if you're to calculate gravity based on energy conversion (rather than actual particle mass), would you not need to convert the entire energy of a system before such calculation? Example: Conversion of energy of earth would be required, than added to it's mass, before calculation? (I thought we just used mass, radius, and G, am I wrong?) E=mc^2 is a mathematical conversion. Not implication that addition of energy manifest also particles of mass. (You can't just pick and choose when to convert energy to mass for calculation).

First off, missing math is why this is in speculation section. Thanks for links Mordred, I'll get to them when I can. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure particle physics explain that enough energy/momentum can break bonds of force. It's not particle physics, or (for the most part) GR I'm looking to change (as this is insignificant at such scales). Quantum theory has energy transforming into mass without corresponding mass particles, and explains this with the whole is less than the sum of it's parts. Essentially saying 1 < 1. In there lies what's missing. To help me out, explain why energy doesn't radiate within the atom. Specifically why energy is considered evenly distributed within the atom, rather than concentrated at it's center/source, the nucleus. The kinetic motion/energy lies in the nucleus much more than the vastly empty space elsewhere in the atom. Why doesn't energy radiate from the nucleus to the outer, less energetic parts of the atom (pushing the electrons against attraction in the process)? I suspect it's similiar to thermal dynamics and gravity, changing inverse to radius, rather than equal throughout. Attraction interaction with radiation prevents energy from escaping in a balanced system, but that does not imply equal distribution of energy. Thanks for your time.

I would love help on math. I'll check such out (as my time for research is limited). [Personally, I've never been a fan of a system's whole is less than sum of (known) constituents. I believe this "opposite force" is the missing constituent that will better explain a system's wholeness. Point being, that's where I'd first look for math. For now I'm still seeing how supported this is of evidence/testing.] As for how much energy is needed for expansion to push away the electron from hydrogen (exceeding attraction) I'm not sure. That's the process you are mentioning though. (I also wonder if the proton will also react accordingly, breaking up and expanding its least massive quark, which would then behave like an electron. That's the flip side of the tempurature test I mentioned...though not to say it'd remain in long if it can shed/radiate some energy.) [Forgive me if I sound less coherent, as it's 3a and I can't sleep.]

Protons have energy. Protons have quarks. Nuclear Heat/Energy attempts to radiate, but attraction doesn't let it (they "balance" out). The electron gets caught in the battle (finding orbit within that balance).

Thermal Expansion due to energy in the nucleus: Energy/friction of nucleus causes heat/repulsive/expansive force that pushes against electrons (or otherwise smallest stable particle in the atom [consistent with gravity in general]). The position an electron lies in orbit clouds is due to the balance between this thermal expansion, and the attractiveness of the nucleus. There are many implications from this (and I'm still looking to see if certain tests have been performed, with their results). Avoiding other implications (for now), to the topic of energy and gravity. I believe gravity, as observed, described, and commonly understood, is Not true attractiveness, but the difference of true attractiveness and said expansion. That's why gravity is seen as weak. True attractiveness (concept of gravity) among the bigger particles of the nucleus (strong force), expansion pushing the smallest of stable atomic particles (electrons), yet expansion deteriorating faster with distance than attractiveness, so the area where attractiveness balances with expansion you'll find the electrons. Then finally, beyond the interaction, you have the remaining attraction that exceeds expansion. This is gravity as we observe it, the weakest force. In short: The observed force of gravity is the difference between the true attractiveness [strong force] (as a function of mass) and expansion (as a function of energy). Further, as expansion deteriorates quicker with distance than attraction, the greater the mass, the less significant the expansion, and the more gravity resembles true attraction. Leading to expansion's insignificance in terms of general relativity. Test to be performed (if possible) [with expectations]: 1) Adding Energy to an atom. [Even as attractiveness/gravity increases due to increased density/reduced radius, the electrons get pushed farther from nucleus due to also increasing expansion]. 2) Heavy Metal at extremely low temperatures (near absolute 0). [Electrons would fall into the nucleus, with smaller atomic particles (such as neutrinos which normally get completely pushed out) then behaving as electrons about the atom]. 3) Vaporizing water/mercury in "zero" gravity. [Appears as a collapsing star, which is actually a result of a star gaining energy rather than running out of energy. Black Hole formation such]. 4). Observing electron teleportation [as described in next paragraph]. To visualize: Expansion from the sun causes solar flares, but gravity pulls them back in. Similar quantum effect, expansion pushes a part of the nucleus (such as an electron formed from a nuclear collision) into electron cloud, then a corresponding electron falls back into nucleus (rebalancing the causing collision). [This effect happening much faster than electron normal cloud movement, giving an "electron teleportation" appearance. Difficult to test/observe though.] It's a radical idea, and I'm still working on supported/unsupported evidence (thus speculation and lacking sources).

First, forgive me. I thought this was in the speculation section. (I'm new here, and this started with me responding to a thread in speculation). Actually, I'm just gonna delete my speculation part and make a new post in speculation.

-deleted-

Here's one such article regarding inconsistency of Newton's gravitional constant (though I'm not a fan of it's theory to explain such): http://m.phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html Do photons not have mass? (I thought it had very small, considered insignificant mass and thus considered massless, though not actually massless). Also, would it be the mass, or the gravity that increases (what is actually observed)? Energy increase causes gravity increase by increase in velocities, and resultant compression/density (reducing radius). We measure this, and effectively explain it by energy to mass conversion. However, though gravity is increased (via energy, and simulated added mass by mathematical conversion), the particle mass has not increased. I'm not against relativity, it works well in a near constant energy/tempurature environment (as most test suggest). However, does it not become erroneous in extreme tempuratures (Big Bang stuff)? [i feel this is due to the general exclusion/equalition of energy, and thus why relativity fails at quantum levels.]

Are you saying adding energy to a system causes manifestation of particles? (I don't think you're trying to say that. If not, then your statement is in agreement with mine). It's not the concept that's flawed, but the formulation. Studies deal with testing the inconsistency of Newton's gravitionial constant (specifically at non-normal testing tempuratures [thus implying energy change not properly represented by change in density/radius alone]). That only explains the incorrectness of the current formula. (Energy being a seperate variable deals with a theory of nuclear thermal expansion. Heating an atom/nucleus causes electrons to jump to a higher orbit. [Further explains why electrons don't fall into nucleus and such]. I'm looking into that (not yet prepared to argue)). I'll try to find links later (busy day for me).

I've read there are studies that if you increase a system's energy while keeping it's mass constant, it's gravity increases. That increase is very small (related to E/(c^2)), insignificant on testable and relative scales, but perhaps significant at quantum scales (when rc < 1). Point being, if changes in energy effects gravity while mass is constant, energy should be a variable in formulating gravity.