An atomistic theory of matter

In Section 5 of the book citated in www.atomsz.com you can find the correct calculation of the deviation of R^3/T^2 between Mars and Uranus. Tha date are taken from A. N. Cox, Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, AIP Press, N.Y. 2000. The data are given with an accuracy of 10^-8. The mass corrections are also performed on R^3/T^2. I don't know where your data coming from, but they are not precise. The deviation is 0.15% as given in [link removed]

Your data to the difference of the acceleration on two bodies of different composition are also incorrect. The acceleration is not beeing tested sufficiently. It is not true that this has been widely tested!!!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is always the same, the people use incorrect data for calculation and use the phrase "This has been widely tested" which is not true.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Kepler's law is an approximate law of nature. Newton's universal gravitation is a better approximation. Einstein's General Relativity is a better approximation yet."

These communication is intrue. Kepler's law and Newtons law for acceleration in gravity have to be correct

a(body) = - a0 (1 + Delta(body))

and

R^3/T^2 = constant (1+ Delta(planet)).

Delta(body) is the relative mass defekt in comparison from inertial mass to gravitational mass.

Einstein's General Relativity is incorrect, the gravity is caused by elementary gravitational charges and gravity is not the deformation of spactime.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We know Delta(body) phemenological, it is

-0.109% < Delta(body) < +0.784%.

 

"It may be argued that elementary particles have no weight at all - and that they only have only inertia and mass. Interpretation of results from a free fall experiment of electrons at Stanford University (F. C. Witteborn and W. M. Fairbank ) may suggest that elementary single particles do not have weight. The results from Stanford University showed that the gravitational acceleration of electrons in a metal tube was close to zero (measured to within 9%). The scientists explained this unusual result as the effect of the earth gravitational pull on free electrons in metal. It was argued that each electron and nucleus in the metal were acted on by an average electrical field (set up by a slight displacement of charges), polarizing the metal and exactly counteracting the free floating electrons inside the tube."

This is absolutely nonsense!

 

What is the basis for charge? We know these come in pairs, that we call positive and negative. We assume these two charges are equal and opposite. However, in nature it is most common for the positive charge to associate with the larger of the two elementary masses, to form the proton. Although a negative proton is possible this not how the universe has become at steady state.

This final arrangement is explained away as being due to randomness, due to the original interaction of matter and anti-matter. However in chemical and nuclear reactions, certain goals tend dominate due to net energy and entropy considerations. If positive charge follows this trend of nature, the observed dominate arrangement of positive charge and larger mass would occur even if we started the universe again. What does this bring to the table?

Relative to Heisenberg Uncertainty, the lighter and faster electron has more uncertainty in position, while the heavier and slower proton is more certain with respect to position. The addition of electrons to atoms helps to contain the negative charge into orbitals for greater positional certainty.

 

The pairs of elementary gravitational charges are gi ={ -g me, + g me}, i = e, p and gi ={ +g mP, - g mP}, i = P, E.

Anti-matter does not exist, but it exist matter with negative gravitational charge.

Heisenbergs Uncertainity bind together the r and p uncertainity with the Planck's constant, but is is not a true relation, it is not a generally valid relation.

The position AND the velocity (impulse) of a particle is at any time known inprecise.

 

Is Atomsz the reincarnation of jcc or theorist-constant12345?

 

This has become a pseudoscience monologue in the Physics & Math forum! The only real reference provided is the author's own pseudoscience web page(s).., (and publication?).

How long will it go on? Split the thread and send the author and his ides to the Fringe.., or round file.

 

Incorrect. Experimental difficulties have prevented anyone from measuring the acceleration due to gravity on an electrically charged elementary particle up through 2012.
See Witteborn, F. C., and W. M. Fairbank. "Experimental comparison of the gravitational force on freely falling electrons and metallic electrons." Physical Review Letters 19.18 (1967): 1049.

See Witteborn, Fred C., and William M. Fairbank. Experiments To Determine The Force Of Gravity On Single Electrons And Positrons. Stanford Univ., Calif., 1968.
See Fischbach, Ephraim, and Carrick L. Talmadge. The search for non-Newtonian gravity. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. page 192

But the effect of gravity on Neutrons has been measured.

See Colella, Roberto, Albert W. Overhauser, and Samuel A. Werner. "Observation of gravitationally induced quantum interference." Physical Review Letters 34.23 (1975): 1472. (Neutrons feel the full force of gravity within experimental limits.)
See Schmiedmayer, Jörg. "The equivalence of the gravitational and inertial mass of the neutron." Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 284.1 (1989): 59-62.

 

Thanks for the references. I had lost track of the neutron experiment.

 

In physics no laws can be proved. There exist only physical evidences.

As a fundamental physical evidence, the gravitational and inertial masses are different. The gravitational masses play only a role in the gravitation. Further physical evidence is that the rest mass and the gravitational mass of stable elementary particles are the same. The elementary particles, the electron (e) and the proton (P) have different rest masses me and mP. The positon (p) and the elton (E) – in the physical literature the elton is called “antiproton” - have the rest masse mp = me and mE = mP. The connection of the gravitational interaction to the masse are arranged through the gravitational charges gi of the four elementary particles

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

and the universal gravitational constant is

G = g/4∙ π.

The elementary gravitational charges are conserved as the elementary electric charges

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

The stable elementary particles e, p, P and E are defined through the condition that they carry two elementary charges qi and gi. All other particles are consisting of the four elementary particles e, p, P and E and the inertial and gravitational masses of the composed particles are determined through the elementary masse me and mP and the particle numbers Ne, Np, NP and NE, see www.atomsz.com.

This investigation defines the Atomistic Theory of Matter, a quite other particle physics as the accepted Standard Model of Particle Physics. Since the generally accepted Standard Physics is based on the Relativity Theories and on the Quantum Theories and these theories throw away the gravitational mass, the physicist are forced with the handling of a chaotic list of particles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles

The Atomistic Theory of Matter utilizes only four stable elementary particles.

The Relativity Theories and the Quantum Theories are energetic physics.

 

Schmiedmayer DID NOT DETERMINE the equivalence of the gravitational and inertial mass of the neutron.

 

The hydrogen atom consists of one proton an one electron and the atom has a magnetic momentum in its ground state. You can easy estimate how wide have two H-atoms to be in rest in order the gravity is dominantly over the magnetic interaction.

 

Paradigm sift in physics

In science theories is the development of science subdivided in different phases. The development is not continuous but after a phase of some accepted paradigms a paradigm change occurs with incommensurability in that time and after them the reception of the new paradigms will be done. The conception of the possibility of normal scientific work is also discussed in distinction to "per-scientific" or pseudo-scientific works. In physics the status of normal science is understood by the declared intention theories only admit of which prognoses are in compliance with experimental findings. The paradigms are the quintessence of the esteemed valid theories. But it is not easy to define precisely the paradigms out of the accepted valid theories. In physics we try it in the subdivision in classical physics, in quantum theories + relativity theories and in atomistic theory of matter. The paradigms of classical physics are based on the axioms of Newtons mechanics, on his gravitation theory, on Galileo's UFF hypothesis with the consequence of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass with constant masses, and on the possibility to determine exactly the position and/or velocity of particles at every time. The classical mechanics is completed with the classical electrodynamics with the constancy of light velocity. The relativity theories use the above mentioned possibility, postulate the relative motion of bodies either if the movement in comparison with the constant velocity c is considered in comparison with coordinate systems with constant velocities or if the bodies move in comparison with a constant acceleration. The weak equivalence principle is accepted and the energy is equivalent to the inertial mass. The gravity is a metrical deformation of space and time. The gravitational mass is thrown out of these theories. The quantum theories are based on the quantization of particle energies and on the quantization of the fields. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle with the Planck's constant h is used because the position and velocity (the impulse) of particles are not exactly determinable. These theories are energetic theories and there are many inconsequences in the connection of quantum and relativity theories. The atomistic theory of matter use stable particles with fields, instead of the UFF hypothesis it assumes elementary gravitational charges to cause the gravity, the gravitational and inertial masses are different and uses that neither the position, nor the velocity of particles can be exactly determined at any time. Four kinds of stable particles carry two kinds of Maxwell charges which cause the electromagnetic and the gravitational fields with the constant propagation c in a unified way. This theory explains also the role of the Planck's constant as Lagrange multiplier and avoids the inconsequences of the accepted theories before. The particle number conservation replaces the conservation and quantization of energy. The transition to atomistic theory of matter corresponds to a paradigm change without reception in the physical literature nowaday.

 

The gravitational mass of hydrogen atom H, of instable neutron N and of stable neutron N0 =(P,e) is the same

mg(H) = mg(N) = mg(No) = mP - me.

This yields because the (e,p) pair does not contribut to the gravitational masss.

The inertial masses of these particles differ and they differ also from gravitational mass:

For H and N0 the inertial masses can be calculated according the formula

mi(particle) = mP + me - E(particle,bound)/c^2

with the bound energy E(H,bound) = 13.6 eV and E(No,bound) = 2.04 MeV. The inertial mass of N is experimentally known. If we write the relation of the gravitational mass to the inertial mass as

mg(particle)/mi(particle) = 1 + Delta(particle),

with the relative mass defect Delta(particle) of the particles, we get for the Delta's the values

Delta(H) = -0.109%, Delta(N) = -0.193% and Delta(No) = +0.109%.

Minus sign means the gravitational mass is less than the inertial mass.

No fifth force is necessery only the knowledge of gravitational charges which cause the gravity.

 

You have learn to count with particle numbers NP, Ne and Np and with the gravitational masses and with the inertial masses of elementary particles as Nature does:

The inertial mass of a bound particle is less than the sum of masses of NP proton, Ne electron and Np positron. The difference is E(bound)/c^2.

The gravitational mass of an electric neutral bound particle is the difference mg(particle) = NP (mP - me).

 

Why do we care what you think? Why do we care what you claim without evidence or logical argument?
Where is the peer-reviewed paper questioning the result of Schmiedmayer? Why don't you write one, get it published in a journal of good reputation, and then we will chat about it. To get you started, here is a link to a PDF version of the paper: http://www.researchgate.net/profile...he_neutron/links/0046352728732d0cba000000.pdf

Oh, wait, I didn't produce ONE reference, but TWO independent references. So you will also need to refute the findings of Colella, Overhauler and Werner. Here's a copy of that paper also:
http://www.atomwave.org/rmparticle/...ensing refs/gravity/COW75 neutron gravity.pdf

 

The Atomistic Theory of Matter is a complet new physics for gravitation and unifies the gravitation with the electromagnetism: [link removed]

The gravitational charges have physical evidence.

 

It's obviously the time of year for the nutters to come of hibernation...