Does physics say my notion is incorrect?

[discountbrains]

I never studied physics past basic physics for engineers and one Modern Physics course. My notion is that while electrons and protons have a mutual attraction for each other neutrons only have an attraction for protons and none for electrons or each other. This is why the neucleus stays together. I say neutrons also have some attraction for protons in neighboring atoms. I had a theory of gravity that it's due to the distribution of the + and - charges in any material, but could never proof it or interferer with this experimentally because the  neutrons also exhibit attractions to distant  protons. Someone said once I was just talking about Van der Waal's forces. Anyone who has studied any chemistry or anything already knows this. This may be an extention of VdW's forces though.

Edited July 27, 2018 by discountbrains
misspelled word

[StringJunky]

Neutrons and protons are bound by the strong interaction, which is a short range force. it is one of the four fundamental forces: strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force and gravity.

[Strange]

38 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

My notion is that while electrons and protons have a mutual attraction for each other neutrons only have an attraction for protons and none for electrons or each other.

This is partly true. Protons and neutrons are held together by the strong nuclear force. This also attracts protons to protons, and neutrons to other neutrons. Because of the strong electrostatic repulsion between protons, you need a certain proportion of neutrons for the atom to be stable.

Actually, the strong force is what holds the quarks together inside protons and neutrons. It is the residual string force that "leaks" out of the protons and neutrons that holds them together.

41 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

I say neutrons also have some attraction for protons in neighboring atoms.

The strong nuclear force is very short range so any such effect is pretty much zero.

41 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

I had a theory of gravity that it's due to the distribution of the + and - charges in any material

This seems to be a very common idea, for some reason. There are countless reasons why it can't be true. For example, atoms are electrically neutral. We can block the electrostatic force, but we can't block magnetism. It goes on and on ...

[discountbrains]

I believe that the electrons are free to move in the boundary of the atom and thus electrons in other atoms will push them far enough away to achieve an equilibrium. This would leave the protrons more exposed to the attraction of the other electrons near and further away, thus causing an attractive interaction in all matter.

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

I believe that the electrons are free to move in the boundary of the atom and thus electrons in other atoms will push them far enough away to achieve an equilibrium. This would leave the protrons more exposed to the attraction of the other electrons near and further away, thus causing an attractive interaction in all matter.

Why not learn what physicists have learnt by experiment  instead of making it up? 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, discountbrains said:

I believe that the electrons are free to move in the boundary of the atom and thus electrons in other atoms will push them far enough away to achieve an equilibrium. This would leave the protrons more exposed to the attraction of the other electrons near and further away, thus causing an attractive interaction in all matter.

Then let's see the mathematical model and how well its predictions match what we observe...

[swansont]

On July 27, 2018 at 2:18 PM, discountbrains said:

I never studied physics past basic physics for engineers and one Modern Physics course. My notion is that while electrons and protons have a mutual attraction for each other neutrons only have an attraction for protons and none for electrons or each other. This is why the neucleus stays together. I say neutrons also have some attraction for protons in neighboring atoms.

You could test this by looking at binding energies of various isotopes. You should be able to predict a pattern and confirm it. Start with the lightest isotopes 

On July 27, 2018 at 2:18 PM, discountbrains said:

I had a theory of gravity that it's due to the distribution of the + and - charges in any material, but could never proof it or interferer with this experimentally because the  neutrons also exhibit attractions to distant  protons. Someone said once I was just talking about Van der Waal's forces. Anyone who has studied any chemistry or anything already knows this. This may be an extention of VdW's forces though.

VdW forces do not behave like gravity does.

[discountbrains]

"Why not learn what physicists have learnt by experiment  instead of making it up?" Yes, but I really want to leapfrog over having to learn all this stuff. My only interest in it and my challenge is to figure out how UFOs fly. Let am convinced now from examining every account I've gotten hold of is that they use some sort of microwave. About 6mo ago the English police started deploying a 700 lb device that will stop the ignition of a fugitive's vehicle. It's said to use a frequency of between 1.5 Ghz and 3 Ghz. There must be 100 accounts of car ignition failures when UFOs become near. They dug up some grass where a UFO had landed and the roots were burnt. This indicates to me the ground had been exposed to electro-magnetic induction. My favorite accoint involved a young police officer in Nebraska from the 1950s who said he was abducted. He said they told him they used "reversable electro-magnetism". He was 'whooshed' up into the craft and said there was acircle of  55 gal drum-like objects with cables resembling battery cables attached to them. He drew them as being attached in parallel.

When considering a small # of atoms at the center of the Earth we would observe  the + charges pretty much in the center with the - more towards the outside. this in turn would cause the surrounding atoms to them to be slightly - to the outer edge of them. This in turn would push the next layer and so on. How could this not be so? Actually, in any ring of atoms the electrons on the inner surface would be more dense and would have to move towards the outer surface to equalize forces. I did some rudimentary calculations once, but concluded there is really no way I could tell what's going on.

Sorry for the lack of editing. I was afraid my internet connection would be lost.

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

Yes, but I really want to leapfrog over having to learn all this stuff. My only interest in it and my challenge is to figure out how UFOs fly.

It would be more help to humanity as a whole if you could invent a surge protector for irony meters.

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

"Why not learn what physicists have learnt by experiment  instead of making it up?" Yes, but I really want to leapfrog over having to learn all this stuff.

That has never worked for anyone else. But good luck.

17 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

My only interest in it and my challenge is to figure out how UFOs fly.

What do you mean by "UFP"? Using the standard definition, if it is unidentified how can you say anything about what makes it fly (if, indeed, it does)?

18 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

How could this not be so?

And that is why you need to learn some basic physics. If you are not willing to do that, then this is fairly pointless because no one will be able to explain to you, in a way you will accept, that you are wrong.

20 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

When considering a small # of atoms at the center of the Earth we would observe  the + charges pretty much in the center with the - more towards the outside. this in turn would cause the surrounding atoms to them to be slightly - to the outer edge of them. This in turn would push the next layer and so on.

Can you quantify this effect?

No?

Would that be because you refuse to learn any basic physics and have decided to "leapfrog" straight to guesswork? Do you see the problem now?

 

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

That has never worked for anyone else. But good luck.

Another ironic thing about this is that AFTER you leapfrog over the learning process, most explanations just sail right over your head. 

[discountbrains]

I never got a precise answer pointing out my error in thinking.I learned nothing more than I have always heard. We humans always want to think of being able to wrap the universe up into a nice neat package. It's always been my thinking a lot of this modern physics is really speculation and a fantasy. I believe what I said above about UFOs is fascinating. I have just about run out of ideas though and they won't sell microwave range frequency transmitters to the public over 1.5W. Clearly this is a shot in the dark with very low probability. Oh yes, I forgot to add an account of a man walking up and toucbing a UFO and having radiation like burns in a checkerboard pattern on his chest the next day.

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

I never got a precise answer pointing out my error in thinking.I learned nothing more than I have always heard. We humans always want to think of being able to wrap the universe up into a nice neat package. It's always been my thinking a lot of this modern physics is really speculation and a fantasy

Some physics certainly is speculation....from speculation comes an hypotheisis...from an hypothesis via the scientific method, comes scientific theories/models. Some speculation though is doom to failure and some anomalous to speaking out of one's rear end. Do you have any reason to believe any accepted, mainstream physics models/theories are just pure fantasy? Or are you just peeved off because your own rear end speculative notions have been invalidated?

.

Quote

I believe what I said above about UFOs is fascinating. I have just about run out of ideas though and they won't sell microwave range frequency transmitters to the public over 1.5W. Clearly this is a shot in the dark with very low probability. Oh yes, I forgot to add an account of a man walking up and toucbing a UFO and having radiation like burns in a checkerboard pattern on his chest the next day.

Yep, fascinating, thought provoking, and some worthy of further investigation and research. Still, as of today, the seventh day of August 2018, at 1044hrs AEST, we do not have any conclusive evidence of life existing off this Earth, let alone visiting Earth.

Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence: Carl Sagan.

[discountbrains]

Too bad u quoted that Carl Sagan. I could not care less what he thought. So he wrote a lot of books and got on TV, so what. So he got himself well known and famous We should therefore all bow down to him.

[beecee]

8 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

Too bad u quoted that Carl Sagan. I could not care less what he thought. 

Yes, obviously, the  ignorance shown in your many posts would confirm that.

Quote

So he wrote a lot of books and got on TV, so what. So he got himself well known and famous We should therefore all bow down to him.

That's not what makes him a educator of some renown though. And I'm not and do not bow to him or anyone else. In my time on forums such as this, and what knowledge I have gained in reading many reputable books by reputable authors such as Sagan, I have learnt to respect such men of knowledge and wisdom, and as a bonus have a reasonable quality myself, in being able to sort the wheat from the chaff. That my friend is something you badly need to accomplish.

[Strange]

48 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

I never got a precise answer pointing out my error in thinking

The trouble is, by deliberately choosing to remain ignorant, you are unable (a) to provide any support for your idea (or better still, trivially prom to yourself it doesn't work) and (b) to understand any explanations as to why you are wrong.

You have cut yourself off from understanding.

50 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

It's always been my thinking a lot of this modern physics is really speculation and a fantasy.

Again, this is just a symptom of your (wilful) ignorance. No one can help with that. 

You could (if you were interested) study the history of science to learn why these theories are accepted by science.But you won't of course.

52 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

Oh yes, I forgot to add an account of a man walking up and toucbing a UFO and having radiation like burns in a checkerboard pattern on his chest the next day.

Did his unicorn survive?

[discountbrains]

Yea, if and when I can do a repeatable experiment (IF) I will certainly try to publish it. Clearly, I know this is unlikely. I believe my question was answered early on with the classic ususal answers. Interestingly It is just my type of personality that does the astounding things-not the naysayers. I asked a legitimate question here and most of what I get is personal attacks. Several people have rold me of experiences I question. But, is it if the ordnary person tells u something it should be discarded and it can only be accepted if the high priests of physics say so. I may be violating scientific rigor , but I believe the accounts.

Please forgive me for revisiting my old topic on relativity. You did make me discover my error.  HOWEVER, let me pose another question: Suppose a long object is traveling at 0.99c to a point B and it's not traving in a vacuum, but air or some gas. So, there would be numerous particles of the gas between the object and B. Strange agrees with me that the distance between the front of the oblect and B would have to appear greater (since the object appears much shorter) to a stationary observer off to the side than it would if the object wasn't moving. So now what? Do the distances between each particle become greater or do more particles have to be created? There needs to be something acting on the object to make it move. Does this something have to also act on the particles in front of it too? What are we to believe? 

[beecee]

36 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

Yea, if and when I can do a repeatable experiment (IF) I will certainly try to publish it. Clearly, I know this is unlikely. I believe my question was answered early on with the classic ususal answers. Interestingly It is just my type of personality that does the astounding things-not the naysayers. I asked a legitimate question here and most of what I get is personal attacks. Several people have rold me of experiences I question. But, is it if the ordnary person tells u something it should be discarded and it can only be accepted if the high priests of physics say so. I may be violating scientific rigor , but I believe the accounts.

Where I come from we call that "spitting the dummy" What has occurred is that your questions have been answered by experts that have without fear or favour shown and told you, you are wrong. But sometimes people with inflated egos and delusions of grandeur, are unable to accept that. You will not be doing any repeatable experiment..fact. You will not publish anything: Fact. You have not been personally attacked: fact. It is you who through ignorance and petty reactions in being told the way it is, have attacked others. 

As an amateur in this field, one of the first things I learnt, was before anyone sees any need to claim he has a theory that answers questions on the cosmos and reality, he must first know what the incumbent model is saying and is on about. On that obviously you have failed.

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by beecee

[discountbrains]

Really? Oh my goodness. You sound like an alcoholic or someone who wants nothing but to tear others down. This shows u have inadequatecy feeling about yourself. I am already Quite proud of things I have done. I don't think I've done anything noteworthy in physics though. Math maybe; that's my field.

[MigL]

I wouldn't be feeling too proud.
Your ideas are quite ridiculous.

Science doesn't guess, or believe.
It builds models, and verifies them with experiment.

Your ideas about atomic charge distribution and microwave propulsion are verified wrong.
No amount of 'belief' will change that.
( and if you don't believe me, ask the aliens, next time they anally probe you )

[beecee]

1 hour ago, discountbrains said:

Really? Oh my goodness. You sound like an alcoholic or someone who wants nothing but to tear others down. This shows u have inadequatecy feeling about yourself. I am already Quite proud of things I have done. I don't think I've done anything noteworthy in physics though. Math maybe; that's my field.

Oh, please stop playing the victim card. Learn to accept that your hypotheticals throughout your threads here, including your illusion re a fallacy with Einstein's theory, are invalid. If you don't like being informed of that, then you are in the wrong place.

[Strange]

6 hours ago, discountbrains said:

I believe my question was answered early on with the classic ususal answers.

That is because the "usual answers" (the ones based on science) work. Uninformed guesswork does not usually.

6 hours ago, discountbrains said:

I asked a legitimate question here and most of what I get is personal attacks.

I have seen no personal attacks. If you think there are you should report them to the mods. They are pretty strict about that sort of thing.

6 hours ago, discountbrains said:

But, is it if the ordnary person tells u something it should be discarded and it can only be accepted if the high priests of physics say so.

This shows your profound ignorance of how science works.

No one accepts anything because these mythical "high priests" tell them to. It is because the evidence shows that the theories are correct.

We don't say we know how electromagnetism works "because Faraday said so". Anyone who studies physics does these same experiments and confirms that the theory is correct. Some are so simple that you could do them at home. The same is true of quantum theory or relativity. It is NOT because "Einstein said" but because multiple experiments have been done to test (ie to attempt to disprove) the theory.

6 hours ago, discountbrains said:

Do the distances between each particle become greater or do more particles have to be created?

"Greater" as measured by who?

Interestingly, there are cases where particles are created accord to one observer that are not there for another (see Unruh radiation, for example).

6 hours ago, discountbrains said:

There needs to be something acting on the object to make it move.

No there doesn't. 

3 hours ago, beecee said:

If you don't like being informed of that, then you are in the wrong place.

That's a good point: Why post your theories on a science forum if you don't want critical feedback? After all, that is how science progresses, by people attempting to destroy theories.

[swansont]

7 hours ago, discountbrains said:

Really? Oh my goodness. You sound like an alcoholic or someone who wants nothing but to tear others down.

!

Moderator Note

That's not going to fly around here. Stick to discussing the science, such as it is.

 

7 hours ago, discountbrains said:

This shows u have inadequatecy feeling about yourself.

No, it's more like informal peer review. 

9 hours ago, discountbrains said:

I never got a precise answer pointing out my error in thinking.

You never gave a precise enough description or prediction to generate a precise answer.

[discountbrains]

OK, I finally got a real answer from beecee, I believe, who says particles can be created for some observers. About the gravity theory no one has given ONE reason why what I say can't be true-I'm talking mainly about the distribution of charges in the Earth. I think this is supposed to be a question and answer forum. Somehow I'm continually being accused of trying to debunk established science. I'm very well aware physics is based on what has been examined in many ways and confirmed and reconfirmed over and over again. You're not telling me Anything I don't know.  Please point out where my error lies.

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, discountbrains said:

About the gravity theory no one has given ONE reason why what I say can't be true-I'm talking mainly about the distribution of charges in the Earth.

You have been given three. (At least, I might have missed some.) But we are used to this. It is extremely common with people presenting personal theories. For example:

Personal Theory Proponent: This is my theory ...

Science Forum Members; No that won't work because (1) ... (2) ... and (3) ...

PTP: So it seems no one can explain why my idea doesn't work.

SFM: OK, let's try some more detail: <detailed mathematical analysis> and we can see this because <description of several experiments confirming standard physics and refuting PTP>

PTP: As I thought, no one can prove me wrong, so I will say that it has been confirmed by SFM

SFM: <Collective D'oh>

 

OK. Another reason is that there is an asymmetry that means it can't work. For example, suppose you claim that the Sun has a net negative charge that attracts the net positive charge of the planets (remember, only opposite charges attract). That means all the planets should repel one another (because they all have the same charge that is attracted to the Sun). But we know that is not true because we can calculate the effect that the planets have on one another, and it is an attractive force.

Similarly, if people are attracted to theEarth because they have opposite net electric charge, and the Moon is attracted by the same force then that means that when people landed on the Moon they would have been repelled by it rather than attracted.

 

So, there you are. You have had (at least) four reasons why it can't work.

 

And another one: you are suggesting a massive conspiracy among both scientists and amateur experimenters to hide the true nature of gravity. That doesn't seem very plausible.

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by Strange