Bengt E Nyman

Thank You.

I'm glad that you're happy with yourselves. Bye bye.

Your rules of respect and courtesy seem to go only one way. I am in the process of disclosing a well supported scientific discovery. Your forum seems to be unwilling or unable to deal with it. And you want me to be understanding of your difficulties. I am sorry, but I don't think so. Bengt Nyman

Ok. I will reopen the subject where it belongs.

Nobody has asked a serious question. What do you want to know ?

You are proving that you have not taken the time to read www.dipole.se Yes, it seems that sticking to convictions and principles is not welcome at this forum. You asked ONE condescending question to which you already know the answer, which tells me that you are not interested in a serious dialog. I can only mark you down as not interested, not qualified, or both.

Yes, I wish you would offer scientific critique. So far you have not. I will be happy to provide the support.

I have a blog; www.dipole.se You are anxiously defending an antiquated religion, not a science.

I have to agree with the concern of Scott, the originator of this topic. Under the heading of Speculations there should be little or no strong-arming of the topic or the author. To shut down a topic because it displeases a moderator for whatever reason can easily be misunderstood as censorship. If the subject is not worthy of pursuit let it die a natural death. To kill it with a big red stamp raises suspicions about intolerance and censorship. Bengt Nyman MSME PE

Introduction The complexity of the universe is possibly beyond the grasp of the human brain, as for your dog, your cellphone is just another thing to play with. A sign of this is when physics resorts to complex mathematical models which do not tie into a human way to visualize or understand. These mathematical models may not picture or explain how things work, but they do serve as important tools for performing certain calculations and predictions. They can also be important as names and placeholders for phenomena not yet fully understood and explained, temporarily allowing science to get around them and continue. A couple of examples are Relativity and SpaceTime, concepts devised in the early 1900. Both are complex mathematical tools without the features or the pretense to offer a human, common sense explanation for how the phenomenon in question really works. Other examples are the encapsulation of certain subatomic phenomena into fictional names and particles such as gravitons and gluons, serving as placeholders for causes to gravity and strong force. This is not a criticism of these fictional models. They serve as useful models and placeholders for less than fully understood phenomena. However, they also deserve a more complete understanding and disclosure at a later date. One such phenomenon is gravity. In 1964 physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig proposed the quark model, detailing the content inside protons and neutrons. One important aspect of this is that even neutral particles like the neutron contains electrically charged sub particles called up- and down-quarks. At a microscopic level protons and neutrons can consequently be regarded as triangles with electrically charged corners, even if in case of the neutron the sum of the -1/3, -1/3 and +2/3e corner charges equals zero. These electrically charged corners are key to a new and more detailed model of gravity and strong force. This new insight has been made possible by Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig's discovery in 1964 and can therefore not be expected from older models such as relativity and spacetime devised in the early 1900. Imagine two neutrons floating in empty space. Since they are both neutral, do they care about each other ? What if they drift a little closer ? What if the positively charged corner of one is pointing toward a negatively charged corner of the other ? Could they attract each other ? According to Coulombs Law the attraction between two dissimilar electrical charges is the product of the sizes of the two charges divided by the square of the distance between them. F=Ke(q1 x q2)/r^2 As we go on, this description will become more and more detailed and more and more mathematical. If you want to skip that, the bottom line is this: Gravity, which keeps us on the ground, and strong force which holds the atom nuclei together are the results of electrostatic forces between electrically charged particles like protons and electrons in atoms and between electrically charged sub-particles like up- and down-quarks in neutrons and protons. To be continued ?

Before we even worry about the more complex proton simulations, please take a look at the hydrogen and neutron gravity simulations with zero initial velocity: 2D Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and ES Gravity between 2 simulated hydrogen atoms: 2D Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and ES Gravity between 2 hydrogen atoms with free quarks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8sZvadCHH4 3D Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and ES Gravity between 2 hydrogen atoms. 3D model of a Neutron: 2D Charge Posturing and Gravity between 2 neutrons with trapped quarks: 3D Charge Posturing and ES Gravity between 2 neutrons: I don't know if anybody has simulated with enough accuracy or gave it enough time to start seeing the results. Please look at the time laps simulations above before you jump to any conclusions. Also take a look at a general mathematical expression showing that there is ALWAYS a finite positive rest force as a result of ES particle posturing and interaction: The electrostatic dipole Figure 1. Conceptual numerical example according to Coulomb's Law: Attraction = Ke* q^2* (/0.9^2 + e^2/1.1^2 - e^2/1^2 - e^2/1^2) = Ke* q^2* (1/0.81 + 1/1.21 - 1/1 - 1/1) = Ke* q^2* (1.23456790 + 0.82644628 - 1 - 1) = Ke* q^2* (0.06101418) = Ke* 0.061q^2 As can be seen in the result of the calculation above, the dipole interaction between two atoms always yields a finite, positive attracting rest force causing gravity.

A. The simulations of hydrogen and neutron gravity are simple. You can do them yourself, after which we will have a better climate for this discussion. B. The simulations of strong force are more complex and a bit delicate, just like the balance between repulsion and strong force attraction. C. The simulations, 3D modeling and calculations of Deuterium binding energy is very complex and of little use to you until you believe or repeat at least point A above.

Since you are not listening to anything I am saying, why don't you use any physics simulation program you want and repeat my simulations. You will get the same results. See above.

1. I have provided the simulations as well as illustrations to make the results more accessible. 2. No, why should they. I have already provided the simulations. 3. You don't have to run the simulations again, unless you think I am lying to you. 4. I am providing the quantification of binding energy of Deuterium, calculated as a result of the hypothesis. It matches the values given by others. 5. You will get the same results we did. NEUTRAL PARTICLES WITH CHARGED CONSTITUENTS ARE ATTRACTED TO EACH OTHER CAUSING GRAVITY. SIMILARLY CHARGED PARTICLES WITH DIVERSELY CHARGED CONSTITUENTS (LIKE PROTONS) CAN BE FORCED PAST A POINT OF REPULSION CROSS OVER TO FORM E.S. STRONG FORCE BONDS. 6. Now please address the physics aspects of our hypothesis or simply point out that you are not equipped or interested in doing so. P.S. If you are a physicist with ties to a university or a nuclear agency you already have access to plenty of computing and simulation power. Simulate two hydrogen atoms, or two neutrons, in a new and otherwise empty universe. Choose real world parameters, including charged quarks and electrons, and be prepared to wait. The first time it took me overnight, but I am sure you know how to handle that. Good luck. Have fun.

1. Interactive Physics is physics and motion simulation software by Design Simulation Technologies. Also used was Newton by DesignSoft. 2. On an off-line computer. 3. Your question is not pertinent to you addressing my question about our hypothesis.