Where Physics Went Awry
Physics is the science of the study of the world around us and how it works. It is supposed to be about observation and experimentation to develop theory on why things happen and the rules governing these occurrences.
In today’s physics undetectable dark matter and dark energy make up ninety seven percent of the universe while the remaining three percent is what we have to observe.
There are myriads of particles created, not from observation, but necessitated to maintain theory and these particles do not need to be constant but can vary in properties and behavior as needed by theory.
It is permissible for these imaginary entities to defy all the behavior observed in reality and even contradict themselves. Things don’t have to obey reason or logic when their function is to preserve theory.
A new version of physics, quantum physics, was created to provide magic to explain the behavior of matter on the atomic level that violated conventional physics. The laws of physics do not make distinctions based on our perception of size.
The first step in the wrong direction for modern physics happened even before Newton’s development of a force of gravity. Someone examining magnets developed the formula for the force between magnets, F=M1M2/d^2, which was adopted for subsequent forces.
Even though this formula gives a correct result it is the wrong formula, which can be shown by experimentation.
If the answer to a problem is four and the only integers in the equation are twos is the formula two plus two, two times two, or two squared? It makes a difference in the action happening and how mathematics is applied.
With the formula of two squared there is an alternate equally correct answer of minus two squared. The larger the exponent is in a formula the greater the number of correct answers there are.
The experiment to determine the correct formula for magnetism involves creating a composite “sandwich” magnetic and testing its strength against a permanent magnet secured to an aluminum block on a scale.
The force of the magnet is measured in grams of lifting power on the permanent magnet and block. (It is important to use a permanent magnet rather than a block of steel because the steel will have a varying induced magnet produced by the composite magnet that will alter results.)
The composite magnet is made by screwing a permanent magnet a ways up onto a brass threaded rod. A steel washer is then threaded up the rod flush to the permanent magnet. Another permanent magnet is attached to the rod leaving a gap between the steel washer and the magnet.
This apparatus is then hung over the magnet on the scale. What will happen to the readings on the scale as the steel washer is screwed down the rod from the top magnet to the bottom magnet (revealed later)?
The size of an object is not determined by the matter that makes it but by the fields associated with the matter. A small super magnetic can have a greater field or size than a much larger steel magnet. All objects have fields, electrical (matter), magnetic (energy), or both and it is these fields that interact with other objects not the matter.
Because of the flexible nature of fields, a balloon is a more accurate depiction of an object than a solid ball. When two balloons meet they will distort to equalize the pressure between the balloons.
If one balloon has greater pressure it will produce an indentation of the other balloon to where the pressure equalizes. This is also true for fields radiating from objects.
Heat from a hotter object will move further towards an object with less heat than the heat radiated to the hotter object by the cooler object. There is a point between the objects where the heat is equal and any movement towards either object will result in an increase in heat.
The distance between two objects is the distance from one object’s surface to the field of the other object. Whether it is heat, an electric field, or a magnetic field the distance (d1) to the other object is to the point of equalization of the two fields, not from the centers of the two objects (d).
The behavior of electric (matter) fields and magnetic (energy) fields are different. All objects (other than a proton and an electron) have both a positive and negative electric fields with the negative electric field being larger (except a neutron, which is a subatomic molecule made up of a proton and an electron, where the charges are equal).
When the negative electric fields of objects meet there will be a repelling force between them keeping them separate. With magnetic (energy) fields objects will try to change position so the fields of the two objects are attracted to each other.
In electrical fields the skin of the balloons will remain in contact, while with the fields of magnets the skin will disappear as the fields combine, forming a larger elongated balloon. Energy fields combine to produce larger units while matter fields repel keeping objects as separate distinct units.
The proper description for the attraction between two magnets is the strength of a third magnet (being formed as the two magnetic fields combine) which is equal to the sum of the two magnets divided by the distance form one magnet to the magnetic field of the other magnet, M3 =(M1 + M2)/d.
As the two magnets get closer their magnetic flux lines combine forming the third magnet which has a north pole at one magnet and a south pole at the other magnet. The closer they get, the weaker the individual magnets become and the stronger the combined magnet becomes.
The Earth’s and moon’s energy fields combine to form one unit that orbits the sun, even though they are distinct units. Gravity is not a result of mass (matter) but energy. 
Newton created the gravitational constant to include mass because he needed a source for his force and at the time energy was thought of as light. The data he used to produce his force of gravity was the velocity of a planet squared (energy) times the distance the planet is from the sun.
This gives the strength of the energy field of the sun, not its mass. The planets orbit the sun because they are in equilibrium with the energy field of the sun, not because they are being pulled towards the sun.
An object in an energy field will not continue in a straight line but will maintain its energy, equalizing with the field unless energy is added to it or lost by it when it will again try to establish equilibrium with the field by gaining or losing energy.
Einstein perpetuated Newton’s error of associating gravity with mass.
In the asteroid belt the energy field of the sun has decreased causing the energy fields of the asteroids to expand, allowing asteroids to orbit other asteroids. This could not happen with their masses according to Newton’s theory.
The boulders on Ryugu (pictured below) would not be there if gravity was holding them to the asteroid. The kinetic energy of the boulders from the rotation of the asteroid is greater than the attractive force of gravity holding them to the surface. Their velocity is greater than the escape velocity (v = [(2GMr)^-2]/d).
When the energy fields of the Earth and the moon combine there are bulges of a stronger energy field formed on both sides of the individual units. The water on the Earth tries to equalize with the greater energy field creating a high tide on both sides of the Earth.
The current explanation for the high tide on the far side of the Earth is nonsense. Objects have properties and the properties relation to the average is irrelevant. Reality is not politically correct.
Energy fields of units combine to form larger units while their electric or matter fields keep them as distinct units. The planets and their moons are parts of the solar system, which is part of the Milky Way, which is part of a galaxy cluster.
It is in these electric and magnetic fields that light and other electromagnetic waves travel.
Light is a disturbance in these fields where a change in the electrical field produces a change in a magnetic field, which produces a change in the electric field. Light is strictly a wave with no particle nature (photon) and its velocity is determined by the strength of the fields it travels in. (The photoelectric effect is just another version of the piezoelectric effect where a disturbance of the right wave length distorts an ionic bond in a crystal.)
When an electromagnetic wave passes from one object’s fields to another object’s field it refracts and changes speed, just as light leaving water and entering air makes the object in the water appear at a different location.
The speed of light is not constant but varies with the strength of the medium in which it travels. This is demonstrated by both the bending of light nearer the sun as it passes through the stronger fields and experiments where light travels through solid objects faster than through the atmosphere. (No tunneling photons.)
The red shift and blue shift of distance galaxies is a result of the disturbance traveling through fields of varying strength. These shifts are a result of a change in the speed of light which causes a change in the spectrum of atoms as it is transmitted through stronger or weaker electric or magnetic fields.
Space is not empty but contains atoms with electric and magnetic fields. The density of these atoms diminishes with distance from the energy source, like the sun, but the size of the atom’s fields increases with distance. The further apart these atoms are the slower the transmission of a disturbance and the longer the wave length becomes.
When the disturbance enters stronger fields the atoms are closer together and their fields shrink causing the speed of the disturbance to increase and the wave length to shorten. How do you explain a change in light’s wave length without a change in speed?
The light from some nearby suns or galaxies has a blue shift. This is because the unit we are in has a stronger energy field than the source of the light. This means the distance from our observation point to the fields of the source is larger than the distance from the source to the fields or our unit.
We are in a larger magnet. First the strength of these fields decrease from the light source, then increases as the light travels through increasing strength of the fields of our unit. The distance the light spend gaining speed is greater than the distance spent losing speed resulting in a blue shift.
In more distant galaxies or even stars in our galaxy the disturbance must travel a greater distance through weaker fields to the Earth’s fields producing a red shift. When a disturbance travels through multiple fields it can have a combination of red shifts and blue shifts.
The changes in light’s wavelength and frequency are not happening at the source of the light but in the medium it travels in.
Both the electric fields and magnetic fields are emitted by their source in all directions.
When fields meet they combine producing stronger fields. Two electrons will have a stronger negative electric field than one electron and the magnetic fields of two magnets will combine to produce as stronger magnet.
This combining of fields is unlike the force of gravity where the gravitational fields of objects do not combine. When there is an alignment between the sun, the Earth, and the moon the gravitational force on the moon doesn’t change in respect to either the Earth or the sun.
If you use vectors to represent the force of gravity from the sun and moon there should be a larger difference when the moon is between the Earth and sun compared to when the Earth is between the moon and the sun. (The force of gravity between the sun and moon is 60% greater than the force between the Earth and the moon.)
There is no difference in the orbit of the moon around the Earth indicating that the force of gravity on the moon from the sun and Earth are not combining.
This adding of multiple vectors is why people believe that at the center of the Earth the gravitational pull of matter in all directions would cancel out making an object weightless. At the center of a galaxy the gravity from the orbiting solar systems should cancel out producing an area with no force of gravity (excluding the nonexistent singularity.
Do stars burn out and collapse before a galaxy forms?).
The electric and magnetic fields radiating in all directions from all the stars in a galaxy should meet and combine at the center of the galaxy producing extremely powerful fields. It is the combined fields of all the stars in a galaxy which produces a quasar, the most concentrated source of energy, not a black hole.
Why, would the force of gravity from which even light cannot escape, produce a unified beam of energy with its large red shift?
For those who believe the red shift is caused by a Doppler effect, does this mean the centers of these galaxies are moving away from us at a greater rate than the stars in the galaxy?
Quasars are the lasers of the universe propelling concentrated energy into deep space searching for matter to combine with and creating a new galaxy. This beam of energy produced by a galaxy is so strong that it penetrates other energy fields in its path instead of combining with them causing it to have a red shift as the strength of the energy of the quasar decreases with distance.
The quasar travels great distances producing a large red shift never encountering a stronger energy field that would increase the speed of light and shift the spectrum towards the blue wavelengths.
The initial mistake of F=M1M2/d^2 instead of M3= (M1 + M2)/d1 has meant that the measurements of distance have all been wrong. When you see an object you are not looking to the center of the object but the surface where light reflects off the object and you have no way of knowing how far the center is from the surface.
When two objects radiate energy, like heat, the distance between them is not from the center of the objects but from the surface of one object, where heat begins to decrease, to the point where the heat from the two objects are equal (d1).
At this point there will be no decrease in energy but an increase as you approach either object. By having the wrong formula the math used for forces has been wrong.
The results of the experiment with the composite magnet shows the reading on the scale of its strength remains constant as the washer descends the rod until it reaches the midpoint between the permanent magnets.
At this point the force registering on the scale increases in an exponential curve as the washer approaches the bottom magnet. This shows that the distance is determined by the fields.
If two equal magnets are used to determine the force between magnets both formula (M=4M3/d1 and M= (Fd^2)^-2/d will give fairly constant results for the strength of the permanent magnet (M) until the magnets get close together.
At this point the value of M will decrease as all the magnetic force of the individual magnets has been converted to the combined magnet and the further increase in magnetic strength is a result of the consolidating the new magnet.
The reason the strength of a magnet is thought to decrease as the approximate cube of distance is because as a magnet approaches an object made of iron or steel it induces a magnet in the object.
As the permanent magnet and the object get closer the strength of the induced magnet in the steel increases while its distance from the permanent magnet to the field of the induced magnet decreases more than the measured amount creating two variables.
Physics need to realize that the fields of objects are a part of the object and determine how an object interacts with other objects. The size of an object is determined by its fields not by its matter.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone:
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Al Shelton
| #
According to the BBT there can be no “blue” shifts. [as far as I understand].
So this then basically debunks the BBT which suits me just fine, as I never believed it from day one of first day trying to understand it.
Thanks for this…
Reply
John Leslie Nicol
| #
I am sorry to have to say this, but as physicist who worked for 30 years in both theory and experimentation, but what has been written here is absolute rubbish. The simplest of the arguments to debunk here is the comment about the tides. The mechanics and dynamics of the tides being higher in the direction of the moon (or sun) and on the opposite side of the earth are very well understood and can be treated theoretically very easily and verified from measurement.
Statement s regarding light travelling “faster” in dense materials is also stupid. There is only one condition I which the “phase” velocity of light can be greater than c which is when the frequency almost equates to that of a resonant charge. However, in this case the apparent wave form travels faster but no information can be carried since information requires a “disturbance” which cannot be part of such increased speed.
It is hard to tell where all this nonsense came from but it is very harmful I believe to publish any of it in an article in an otherwise respectable blog. John Sullivan should be quick to remove it from its place here.
Reply
John Leslie Nicol
| #
I should add that the fields and forces of magnets are hard to define and approximate because they are ont regular in the sense that electric and gravitational fields are concentrated at the center of the symmetric, spherical object. If a set of these objects is distributed in space, then the electric and gravitational fields themselves are no longer spherically symmentric and do not follow an inverse square law except at great distances. A magnet is represented by a distribution of currents within it and the fields are determined by the physical distribution of that magnetic material. I don’t know how you came to make this stulff up – or is it just a spoof?
Reply
Charlie
| #
John, unfortunately, Herb is actually serious, not a spoof. A good number of people on P-S here are like that, for reasons I do not understand: They supposedly de-bunk science that is well founded, well written by many, with experiment after experiment confirming it, yet, Herb and other say that is wrong because, well, because he says it’s wrong with no alternative hypothesis, theory, experiment, or evidence to back up his position. These things I know you know, but Herb does not. For example he states: The laws of physics do not make distinctions based on our perception of size. – Well, actually they do because quantum mechanics QM works where it works, Newtonian where it works, relativity where it works; it’s just a different set of tools in different regimes. I note also while he makes all these unfounded statements, he offers nothing to show for the given phenomenon the theory and experiment to back it up. That’s common in these arguments; claim it’s all wrong because “fields” but offer no science on “fields” to explain to the same level as current knowledge explains it. He seems to have something other than Maxwell’s equations to explain E&M – but doesn’t show it. I’d be more than happy to read such a thing: If Herb has something other than QM or Newtonian physics (or in the case of orbital mechanics, Kepler’s laws for example) or Relativity or Maxwell’s equations that explains what we see, what we know happens in those realms, publish it, show us. If tides don’t work as you say John (which they do of course) then Herb can publish his science to explain it – but he doesn’t. And as for where light travels through solid objects faster than through the atmosphere? I’d like to see his theory and experiment showing this; that would be a Nobel Prize contender. And the last statement is great: “Physics need (sic) to realize that the fields of objects are a part of the object and determine how an object interacts with other objects. The size of an object is determined by its fields not by its matter.” – OK then, show us how this works, show the math, show the theory, show the experiments, show the predictability using your fields equations….which are published, where??
In any event I read this stuff for the entertainment value. Some folks don’t know what they don’t know; it is a display of the Dunning-Kruger effect in all it’s glory. But they may say that doesn’t exist either because, well, “fields”, so…..
Reply
James McGinn
| #
In my opinion, when people refer to the Dunning Kruger effect and fail to refer to any direct evidence thereof they are actually providing direct evidence thereof.
Additionally, science that is well considered and thoroughly tested has no need to fear dissent.
This history of science has shown us that time and time again us humans think we got it all figured out . . . and it is only after a new theory emerges that our minds become open to the fact that we don’t.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17161
(Be sure to read this whole thread [it is very short]. It highlights a twitter exchange that I had with Patrick Moore.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
William Kay
| #
All I can say on Herb’s behalf is that he “seems” to understand wave theory of light. On the other hand, he is simply trying to say too much. He does not define “field.” He goes way out on the limb on a number of assertions. I recently did a video titled “Ives, Einstein and the Aether” which may be of interest to physics buffs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ6Ou8ckmb8&t=579s
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
Thanks for these thoughts. You include several statements which need unpacking. A list of references would help with your explanations. If you are referring to what I presume is your publication at https://www.amazon.com/Great-Einstein-Hoax-Herb-Rose/dp/1478748095 it would be worth referencing specific pages to justify your statements in this article.
Your comment on tides say:
“There is no difference in the orbit of the moon around the Earth indicating that the force of gravity on the moon from the sun and Earth are not combining.” And;
“The current explanation for the high tide on the far side of the Earth is nonsense.“
This discussion on Moon induced tides on earth seems to ignore the component effect of the sun?
King tides clearly indicate a location effect with respect to the sun which shows gravity effects are associated with individual masses and can be mathematically simulated using Newton’s theory of gravity, can it not?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert’
I thoughtI discontinued that book when I started posting on PSI. How did you find it.
As to the effect of the sun on the tides. The sun treats the combination of the moon and Earth as one unit so its energy field affects the tides when it is aligned with the Earth-moon energy field. (A field is where a unit has control even though it is separate from the matter of the unit. e.g. magnetic field around the Earth.)
Since you are a scientist why don’t you construct a composite “sandwich” magnet like I described and run the experiment. I would like to know how you would interpret the results.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
davejr
| #
Hi Herb,
Thank you for sharing your free thought expressions and especially for enduring the wrath of narrowed and stalled minds of entrainment. Someone first has to think it before funding and work might prove it.
Quick question. What do you think of fields possibly being another (intangible in this case) state of matter? (Solid – liquid – gas – field), each signifying higher energy states? Could there be as many different fields as there are different atoms? Each with their own properties, especially when it comes to wave propagation? Wee this is fun.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Davejr,
I believe you use simple things to make complicated things. Atoms are composed of three building blocks: protons, electrons (neutron being a subatomic molecule with both a positive and negative charge), and energy. Using these building blocks in various arrangements all the elements are produced with their varying properties. Fields are extensions of the electric and energy forces that form the atoms. Once these forces have combined they form a unit and the separate electric field of the electrons and protons combine to make larger negative and positive fields. The force of energy (magnetic) also combine to give the larger unit a single energy field. This atom unit can then combine forces with other atoms to create larger molecules with their electric and magnetic fields. So smaller units form larger units with each unit being defined by its electric and energy fields. At each stage the unit can be acted on by energy. Atoms are not liquid or solids that is a function of the energy of molecules and how their energy fields interact (attractive forces versus kinetic energy of the molecule).
Atoms are not shaped like the current model. This model, with its p and d orbits, is constructed using an assumption that the atom does not exist in a magnetic field. This atom does not exist on Earth, in our solar system , in out galaxy, or anywhere in the observable universe. The atoms that exist in reality are shaped like a solar system with directional electric and magnetic forces. These directional forces create lattices of atoms held together by magnetic force and kept apart by electric force. When a disturbance moves the atoms the directional forces transfer that disturbance to neighboring atoms by increase attractive and repelling forces. This is how light and electromagnetic waves are transferred through gases (including deep space), liquids, and solids. So each unit has distinct field but the fields are the same, energy and electric.
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
“I thought I discontinued that book when I started posting on PSI.” That’s not how the web works. IMO you should use this publication as a base for explaining your latest thinking. Presumably you still have a soft copy of “Great Einstein Hoax” why not write a second edition and then post it on the web as a pdf document? If you want any detailed help with how to do that, you are welcome to send me an email.
Other advice I can offer. Keep away from insulting comment such as “Einstein Hoax” and “is nonsense”. BTW your magnets experiment would be easier to understand if you could refer to a diagram, such as in your book. I have no idea what you are proposing.
“The king tides occur when the Earth, Moon and Sun are aligned at perigee and perihelion, resulting in the largest tidal range seen over the course of a year. So, tides are enhanced when the Earth is closest to the Sun around January 2 of each year. They are reduced when it is furthest from the Sun, around July 2.” This can be readily simulated using Newton’s gravity laws. Are you saying gravity is your description of “fields associated with the matter”?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi again Robert,
I would make a diagram except my art work is worse than my writing. (hard to believe but true.) I will again try to describe the composite magnet. (Does the book have a diagram? I can’t remember.) If you take three equal magnets and stack them they will combine to make one magnet. There is a separation between each magnet but their magnetic fields combine. Instead of using three permanent magnets you made a stack with two magnets with a steel washer between them they will produce a magnet close to the strength of the three permanent magnets as the permanent magnets induce magnetism in the steel releasing magnetic force from the steel..Instead of having three permanent magnets of equal strength you have two permanent and one variable magnets in contact with each other. A gap is left between the bottom permanent magnet and the steel washer in contact with the top magnet. The strength of this gapped composite magnet is measured by a scale by the grams of lifting power. As the variable magnet in the steel washer is moved from the top magnet to the bottom magnet what will the force be recorded.on the scale? The force will remain constant during the first half of its descent. As the washer moves away from the permanent magnet the strength of its induced magnet will decline. The reading will remain constant because as its strength decreases the distance to the bottom magnet decreases keeping the reading constant.At the midpoint the washer enters the magnetic field of the bottom magnet and it produces the induced magnetism in the washer. As it descends the reading of force on the scale will increase as the increasing strength of the induced magnet combines with the force of the bottom magnet. To me this shows that the distance between magnets is from the surface of one to the magnetic field of the other magnet.
The title of the book was intended to get someone to read it (didn’t work). In the book I believe I say that Einstein was proposing an answer to the question of was light a wave as indicated by the Young experiment or a particle as indicated by the photoelectric effect. His solution of both is wrong but he was not trying to hoax people that was done later by his disciples.
I believe gravity has nothing to do with matter but is a function of the energy associated with matter.This energy produces a field that decreases with distance (same as the magnets). The mass is irrelevant. Kepler’s law, velocity of a planet squared time distance of the planet from the sun is constant for all the planets, and gives the energy associated with the sun not its mass. The Earth and moon have energy associated with their matter which also produce energy fields. When an object is in the energy field of another object it will equalize with that energy field. When the sun Earth, and moon are aligned their energy fields combine (like magnets) and water will form high tides trying to equalize with the stronger combined energy field.
I hope this clarifies things.
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
“The mass is irrelevant. Kepler’s law, velocity of a planet squared time distance of the planet from the sun is constant for all the planets, and gives the energy associated with the sun not its mass.”
However, the mass associated with the sun has not changed either. Kepler’s law may only be an artefact of our solar system. If the gravitational ‘constant’ G varies at other solar systems, together with their time dilation factors, they might also follow Kepler’s law but with different velocities matched to different forces of gravity associated with their object masses.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
If you believe that the sun converts mass to energy then its mass must have decreased over the billions of years since the solar system formed. We must develop our theories using the information and data available to us. The information available to Newton was quite limited especially concerning the concept of energy and objects ability to act at a distance (fields). He needed a source for his force and matter was the only source available. I am quite sure that as we gather more information in our solar system we will discover that the gas planets are not composed much different from Earth, asteroids, the moon, or Mars, and their mass as determined by G is wrong. Energy and matter are the same throughout the universe and G is just a mistaken attempt to assign a function (gravity) of energy to mass.
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
“If you believe that the sun converts mass to energy then its mass must have decreased over the billions of years since the solar system formed.”
Do you know the mass of the sun has depleted over the years? If it is sitting in an energy field as you say, it could have gained mass from that source.
I cannot see a difference between gravity and your comment ‘energy associated with matter’. It sounds like semantics. Accepting gravity has a mathematical definition, what is the quantitative value for ‘energy associated with matter’?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
The sun is the center of the energy in the solar system. This is a unit (containing other units) that radiates an energy field that equalizes with the energy field of the Milky Way. When the sun loses energy its energy field contracts and the Milky Way’s energy field expands.
Mass is not attracted to energy but energy is attracted to positive matter and displaces negative matter. The sun burns backwards (see my article in PSI How It All Works) and energy tries to associate with protons. Hydrogen is the final product of energy being attracted to protons. (hydrogen and helium are the ashes of the sun not the fuel) and where the reaction of energy and matter ends. Other elements are able to gain more energy and break down to smaller elements. All the larger atoms are radioactive but because of the structure of their nucleuses their deterioration is very slow. (Why is a alpha particle so stable when it contains such large electrical repelling forces?
The difference between energy being associated with matter and gravity is that matter does not produce gravity so there is no direct relationship. The strength of a unit’s energy field and their interaction with the energy field. of the larger unit they are a part of causes what we call gravity. The examples of this are the binary asteroids and Venus where their relationship to the sun’s energy field determines thesis of their energy field and “gravity”.
The relationship between energy and matter, I speculate, is the attraction of energy to positive matter (proton) is stronger than the attraction between negative matter. (electron) and the proton by a factor of psi, the universal constant.
Herb
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
This is your speculation. Unless you can quantify these statements, they will never advance beyond speculation. Thanks for recording your thoughts.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
A radioactive atom doesn’t have enough binding energy to contain the repelling forces in the nucleus. Certain atom decay by expelling an electron (beta particle) from the nucleus creating a new proton. The beta particle is expelled with enough energy to overcome the attractive force of the protons and to pass through the repelling force of the surrounding electrons. This energy does not come from the electric force, which would bind the electron in the nucleus, or from gravitational force so it must.come from a nuclear force. How can a force to weak to hold a nucleus together provide enough energy to expel something that was binding the nucleus together result in a stronger nuclear force holding a nucleus, containing more repelling force, and forming a stable atom?
Herb
Herb