3 ms·

I expect no attraction at all with spheres of hydrogen liquid or hydrogen solids because there are no neutrons. I'm saying neutrons attract with protons at a di

by ohiovr 4y ago

I expect no attraction at all with spheres of hydrogen liquid or hydrogen solids because there are no neutrons. I'm saying neutrons attract with protons at a distance. Without neutrons, there would be no "gravity". Gravity is not a force at all is my hypothesis. Gravity is caused by neutrons attracting with protons at a distance. Without neutrons, you cannot have "gravity". I wouldn't bring this up if so many fudge factors are used to explain the very basics of universal motion. At one time we didn't know how the sun could burn for so long. Even made of anthracite coal, it would only last a few hundred years. As for your example, the neutrons in the glass are also attracted to the protons in the earth.

ahazred8ta 4y ago
We already have known examples of pairs of neutron stars in close orbits, being held together in orbit by neutron-neutron gravitational attraction. There are stars and brown dwarfs which are composed almost entirely of hydrogen-1, with almost no deuterium or heavier elements. We have seen pairs of these stars in orbits being held together by proton-proton gravitational attraction. Sorry to disappoint you.
- ohiovr 4y ago
  Neutrons also attract neutrons at a distance.
  - gus_massa 4y ago
    Let's try another experiment. Let's suppose we have a small ball in a lab on Earth. Then the ball has two different masses: 1) Inertial mass M: It's the number that appears in the equation F = a * M, where F is the force and a is the acceleration of the ball. 2) Gravitational mass m: It's the number that appears in the equation F = g * m, where F is the force (weight) and g is the gravity constant on Earth surface that is approximately 9.8m/s^2 or 32ft/s^2. All the experiments and General Relativity say both number are equal, so we usually use the same letter and name for both. The idea is that if the ball moves and the only force is the gravity, then the mass get cancel in the equation and then if you fix the initial direction and velocity, all balls have the same trajectory that is the same parabole. It's easy to repeat this experiment with balls of different materials, and verify this result experimentally. If the ball is very light, you need to make the experiment in vacuum, but for a big heavy ball that's not a problem. Each material has a different proportion of neutrons and protons. A ball of iron has approximately 47% protons and 53% neutrons. A ball of lead has approximately 40% protons and 60% neutrons. IIUC in your theory, the attraction is: neutron - neutron : yes neutron - proton : yes proton - neutron : yes proton - proton : yes So the neutron in the ball will be attracted by all the neutron and protons of the Earth, but the protons on the ball will be attracted only the neutrons of the Earth. So the idea is to build two balls of the same inertial mass m, one is made of iron and te other is made of lead. Then you put both in a launcher aimed at the same direction and make a video of the trajectory of the ball. The current most popular theory says that both ball will follow the same path, and that's what you get if you make the experiment in the lab. With your theory, the force(weight) on the iron ball will be smaller than the force(weight) on the lead ball, so the jump of the iron ball will be higher and land more far away. It would be like 3% higher and land like 3% more far away, that is easy to measure in the lab, so this would have been discovered a long time ago.
  - db48x 4y ago
    > There are stars and brown dwarfs which are composed almost entirely of hydrogen-1, with almost no deuterium or heavier elements. We have seen pairs of these stars in orbits being held together by proton-proton gravitational attraction. It is worth rereading this comment. Start with a cloud of ordinary hydrogen–1 with no neutrons at all. It can still collapse under gravity to form stars. All of the hydrogen atoms are attracted to all the other hydrogen atoms, even though they none of them have neutrons. In the early stages of the universe, all stars would have been of this type. These stars were the forges that created most of the neutrons that exist today. If protons did not attract each other gravitationally then this would never have happened. It would be an interesting DIY project to liquify some hydrogen and measure its properties. There would, however, be considerable difficulty in replicating the original experiment directly using liquid hydrogen, because it has to be kept quite cold in order to stay a liquid. It also has the disadvantage of being quite a bit less dense than lead or iron, so your instruments would need to be correspondingly more precise. You might have better luck by measuring the deflection due to gravity of a beam of protons coming out of a particle accelerator. Be sure you make some video recordings of your experiments.
    - ohiovr 4y ago
      All stars have neutrons. Neutrons are star seeds. The number of neutrons increase as the universe ages. Otherwise the so called big bang would have immediately collapsed into a black hole. There are no neutron free zones in the universe except perhaps quasars. How much dark matter is in the universe according to the experts? https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/dark-matter/en/ https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/dark-matter/en/ "Dark matter is stuff in space that has gravity, but it is unlike anything scientists have ever seen before. Together, dark matter and dark energy make up 95% of the universe. That only leaves a small 5% for all the matter and energy we know and understand." From what we see in the sky it is a fairly logical assumption that 95% of the baryonic matter up there are protons and 5% of it is neutrons. There is your missing mass. We only think there is missing mass because of the strange motion of the cosmos doesn't line up with our laws. As a programmer I abhor fudge factors because they don't always work. Think about black holes sucking in matter. Mass down the the center loses it's electric charge for the most part and becomes like neutrons. Quasars are supposed to be quite massive but it appears mass is leaving them. Perhaps quasars are the exit points of black holes. The mass gets converted from neutral to non neutral somewhere at the edges of the universe. If I'm right, then the sun and most stars are a heck of a lot more massive than we think they are. Also this would explain why the atmosphere at earth's beginning was so much hotter because the sun was considerably larger due to ongoing neutron-genesis. Thank you for your time. I'd do the experiment myself if I was able to.
tlb 4y ago
If this were true, stars couldn't form from hydrogen clouds. The primordial universe had only hydrogen. Fusion in stars created neutrons and helium, but this only happened as a result of high temperatures and pressures caused by gravity compressing hydrogen until fusion starts. So I don't see how a universe where protons didn't create gravity could develop stars.

by ohiovr 4y ago

ahazred8ta 4y ago

We already have known examples of pairs of neutron stars in close orbits, being held together in orbit by neutron-neutron gravitational attraction. There are stars and brown dwarfs which are composed almost entirely of hydrogen-1, with almost no deuterium or heavier elements. We have seen pairs of these stars in orbits being held together by proton-proton gravitational attraction. Sorry to disappoint you.

ohiovr 4y ago
Neutrons also attract neutrons at a distance.
- gus_massa 4y ago
  Let's try another experiment. Let's suppose we have a small ball in a lab on Earth. Then the ball has two different masses: 1) Inertial mass M: It's the number that appears in the equation F = a * M, where F is the force and a is the acceleration of the ball. 2) Gravitational mass m: It's the number that appears in the equation F = g * m, where F is the force (weight) and g is the gravity constant on Earth surface that is approximately 9.8m/s^2 or 32ft/s^2. All the experiments and General Relativity say both number are equal, so we usually use the same letter and name for both. The idea is that if the ball moves and the only force is the gravity, then the mass get cancel in the equation and then if you fix the initial direction and velocity, all balls have the same trajectory that is the same parabole. It's easy to repeat this experiment with balls of different materials, and verify this result experimentally. If the ball is very light, you need to make the experiment in vacuum, but for a big heavy ball that's not a problem. Each material has a different proportion of neutrons and protons. A ball of iron has approximately 47% protons and 53% neutrons. A ball of lead has approximately 40% protons and 60% neutrons. IIUC in your theory, the attraction is: neutron - neutron : yes neutron - proton : yes proton - neutron : yes proton - proton : yes So the neutron in the ball will be attracted by all the neutron and protons of the Earth, but the protons on the ball will be attracted only the neutrons of the Earth. So the idea is to build two balls of the same inertial mass m, one is made of iron and te other is made of lead. Then you put both in a launcher aimed at the same direction and make a video of the trajectory of the ball. The current most popular theory says that both ball will follow the same path, and that's what you get if you make the experiment in the lab. With your theory, the force(weight) on the iron ball will be smaller than the force(weight) on the lead ball, so the jump of the iron ball will be higher and land more far away. It would be like 3% higher and land like 3% more far away, that is easy to measure in the lab, so this would have been discovered a long time ago.
- db48x 4y ago
  > There are stars and brown dwarfs which are composed almost entirely of hydrogen-1, with almost no deuterium or heavier elements. We have seen pairs of these stars in orbits being held together by proton-proton gravitational attraction. It is worth rereading this comment. Start with a cloud of ordinary hydrogen–1 with no neutrons at all. It can still collapse under gravity to form stars. All of the hydrogen atoms are attracted to all the other hydrogen atoms, even though they none of them have neutrons. In the early stages of the universe, all stars would have been of this type. These stars were the forges that created most of the neutrons that exist today. If protons did not attract each other gravitationally then this would never have happened. It would be an interesting DIY project to liquify some hydrogen and measure its properties. There would, however, be considerable difficulty in replicating the original experiment directly using liquid hydrogen, because it has to be kept quite cold in order to stay a liquid. It also has the disadvantage of being quite a bit less dense than lead or iron, so your instruments would need to be correspondingly more precise. You might have better luck by measuring the deflection due to gravity of a beam of protons coming out of a particle accelerator. Be sure you make some video recordings of your experiments.
  - ohiovr 4y ago
    All stars have neutrons. Neutrons are star seeds. The number of neutrons increase as the universe ages. Otherwise the so called big bang would have immediately collapsed into a black hole. There are no neutron free zones in the universe except perhaps quasars. How much dark matter is in the universe according to the experts? https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/dark-matter/en/ https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/dark-matter/en/ "Dark matter is stuff in space that has gravity, but it is unlike anything scientists have ever seen before. Together, dark matter and dark energy make up 95% of the universe. That only leaves a small 5% for all the matter and energy we know and understand." From what we see in the sky it is a fairly logical assumption that 95% of the baryonic matter up there are protons and 5% of it is neutrons. There is your missing mass. We only think there is missing mass because of the strange motion of the cosmos doesn't line up with our laws. As a programmer I abhor fudge factors because they don't always work. Think about black holes sucking in matter. Mass down the the center loses it's electric charge for the most part and becomes like neutrons. Quasars are supposed to be quite massive but it appears mass is leaving them. Perhaps quasars are the exit points of black holes. The mass gets converted from neutral to non neutral somewhere at the edges of the universe. If I'm right, then the sun and most stars are a heck of a lot more massive than we think they are. Also this would explain why the atmosphere at earth's beginning was so much hotter because the sun was considerably larger due to ongoing neutron-genesis. Thank you for your time. I'd do the experiment myself if I was able to.

tlb 4y ago

If this were true, stars couldn't form from hydrogen clouds. The primordial universe had only hydrogen. Fusion in stars created neutrons and helium, but this only happened as a result of high temperatures and pressures caused by gravity compressing hydrogen until fusion starts. So I don't see how a universe where protons didn't create gravity could develop stars.