An atomistic theory of matter

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Atomsz, Sep 2, 2015.

  1. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    An Atomistic Theory of Matter are created on the basics of four stable elementary particles which carry elementary gravitational and electric charges www.atomsz.com. The UFF is invalid prognosized theoretically and confirmed experimentically.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    The gravitational mass and the inertial mass of composed particles are different, therefore, the UFF is violated.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy.
    Really, dark matter (what is dark energy?) is not needed, because repulsive gravity also exists, see www.atomsz.com .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    It's considered bad form to spam your own site like this.
     
  8. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Your sentence structure implies a gravitational charge. Is that what you meant?
    What is the UFF?
    What does prognosized mean?
    What experiments confirmed whatever the heck you are talking about?
     
  9. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    One common source of repulsive gravity is connected to gravitational based rotations, which creates a force vector away from the center of gravity; centrifugal force. This is not called reverse gravity by traditions, but it can be traced back to gravity.
     
  10. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Jumping into a thread from 4 years ago, with what reads as.., at best pseudoscience and unrelated by anything other that the thread title?

    No Physics. No math. Not even any comment on the now four year dead discussion?

    Is it spam? Or just an attempt to post pseudoscience in Physics & Math?
     
  11. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    That is not 'repulsive gravity'. You have a profound misunderstanding of gravity and science in general.

    Centrifugal force is not called reverse gravity because it is not reverse gravity it is centrifugal force. This really is not that difficult.
     
  12. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    The four stable particles, the electron (e), the positron (p), the proton (P) and the negative charged elton (E) (="antiproton") have the elementary gravitational charges

    gi = {-g me, + g me, + g mP, - g mP}, i = e,p,P,E.

    The elementary electric charges are

    qi = { - e, + e, + e, - e}, i = e,p,P,E.

    me ist the mass of electron and mP is the mass of proton. The universal gravitational constant which appears in Newtons law is

    G = g^2/4pi.

    An electric neutral isotope with the mass number A is build of A proton, N positron and A+N electron. (The eltons are not present in the isotopes.) The gravitational mass of an isotop mg(A,Z) with the mass number A and with the nuclear charge Z is

    mg(A,Z) = A (mP - me).

    The N positon + electron pairs do not contribute to the gravitational mass. Phenomenologically the inetrial mass of each isotop mi(A,Z) are known form mass spectrometer measuerements. Therefore, the gravitational acceleration

    a(isotop(A,Z)) = - a0 mg(isotop(A,Z))/mi(isotop(A.Z)) = -a0 (1 + Delta(Isotop(A,Z)))

    depends on the isotope. Th relative mass defect is phenomenological known

    -0.109% (=Delta(1H)) < Delta(Isotope(A,Z)), Delta(body) < +0.784% (= Delta(56Fe)).

    The violation of UFF is almost 1% and depends on the contribution of istotopes to the body (!!!)
    The matter in the Universe is consisting of e,p,P and E. For instance the instable neutron is

    N = (P,e,p,e),

    and there exist two kinds of neutrinos

    Ne = (e,p) and NP = (P,E).
     
  13. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    The standard physics constructed from the relativity theories + quantum theories is an invalid physical try. The weak equivalence principle is invalid and teh Plancks constant h does not quantize the energy and the field, see www.atmsz.de.

    Fundamental Principles in Physics 31.08.2015


    Fundamental Principles are

    - neither the position, nor the velocity of particles is ever known precisely,

    - the matter is consisting of four kinds of stable particles,

    - the gravitation is generated through elementary gravitational charges, similar to the generation of the electromagnetism through elementary electric charges,

    - the stable particles carry two elementary charges: the elementary electric and the elementary gravitational charges,

    - both fields generated through the charges as interaction between particles propagate with the constant velocity c.

    The Fundamental Principles are self consistent, complete and are in compliance with all experimental observations on Nature.

    The Atomistic Theory of Matter is the consequence.

    The laws of nature are non-deterministic, however causal.

    A paradigm shift is necessary for laws established in physics.

    Nature does nothing in vain.
     
  14. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    The standard physics is a wrong pseudoscience!
     
  15. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    You misunderstand the gravity and science general. The gravity is neither mass atraction, nor the deformation of space and time. It is caused by four kinds of elementary gravitational charges gi. [link removed]

    The centrifugal force has nothig to do with gravity. It is really not difficult to understand!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2015
  16. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    The Standard Physics (the Standard Model of particles physics + the Standard Modell of astrophysics) is a wrong constructed trail of energetic physics.
     
  17. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    See in [link removed] the variational principle (Lagrange formalism) of Atomistic Theory of Matter for the determination of equation of motions of the electric and the gravitational fields and the equation of motions of the four stable particles.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2015
  18. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    The gravitation is clearly not a deformation of space-time! The equivalence principles are not valid.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2015
  19. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    The weak equivalence principle is not valid because the gravitational mass and the inertial mass are different.

    The Plancks constant h does not quantize the energy and the fields, because it is a Lagrange multiplier and appears only in the equation of motions of particle systems.
     
  20. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    "I'm cautious about the word "mass", in that it usually refers to rest mass rather than mass-equivalence, and it's energy that causes gravity. No, not even that, because if the energy density is uniform, there's no gμv gradient. And I'm not fond of gravitational charge I'm afraid, because it's describing something in terms of something that isn't explained at the fundamental level. Different particles have all sorts of different masses, but their charges are far more limited."

    What an argumentation!

    The rest mass is

    mi(v=0) = (Ne + Np) me + (NP + NE) - E(bound)/c^2,

    with the number Ne, Np, Np and NE of electron, positron, proton and elton. The particle number are conserved! Different elementary particles have different elementary gravitational charges but ther are two elementary mass me and mp. All matter is consisting of e, p, P and E ! It explains the fundamental level.

    The mass density has nothing to do with energy density or with gμv gradient.
     
  21. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    "I'd like to refine what I said about the UP and inertia. I re-read what I wrote before, and it was messy the way it was written. Resistence in a change of motion is the presence of inertia. Particles at the subatomic level are never at rest, they resist being at a single point in space over lengthly periods of time. If they resist at being at a certain point in space over lenghly periods of time, then this is actually the same as saying it is resisting a change in its motion. This is synonymous to the definition that inertia is a resistance to a change in motion. There are similarities. Of course, Motz shows in his paper that particle mass and the radius of a particle has an uncertainty relationship."
    Neither the position, nor the velocity of particles are ever known exactly. The particle masses (of elementary particles) are natural constants.
     
  22. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,450
    Well all this is all just pseudoscience gibberish and does not belong in the science section. Atomsz, you need to go to one of the anti-science sites, they would love you there.
     
  23. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    The energy-mass equivalence principle E = m c^2 (here the inertial mass is understood) is one of the greatest "principle mistake" of the 20. century.
     

Share This Page