'Edge' of the Universe

LB, You miss the point as is the case most of the time. The model of a proton at the size of the sun is deceptive because you don't state if the mass or the volume is being used in the example. A proton the volume of the sun would have a mass near the mass of the known mass of the universe. If the mass of the sun is used in the model the volume of the proton is ~10E12m^3 and the electron is within the radius of the sun. I don't know where the electron would be if the proton has a mass equal to the mass of the universe.

Hi Larry

I want to back up a little to natural philosophy in regard to particles and the atom. There are a few principles that I have accepted from Metascience plus a couple of my own premises:

1) No action at a distance. In other words all interaction comes from face to face collisions.
2) Fundamental particles do not wink into and out of existence. Case in point: the proton is said to have a lifespan of at least 10 to the 34th power years. In comparison, various other "fundamental" particles are declared to have a lifespan on the order of a millionth of a second. There is a ridiculous discontinuity here.
3) Particles act in a completely passive manner. They do not "see". They do not "understand". They do not make decisions. They do not "know their place" in a larger structure. This may all seem self apparent and unnecessary to state, but this is why quantum mechanics is total nonsense. The rules, regulations, laws, principles of quantum mechanics are religion, not science. (In my physical chemistry book, it is stated that the hydrogen atom obeys the Schrodinger equation. Really? Have the poor little things been indoctrinated? Nonsense!)
4) The only force is repulsive force. An attractive force has never been mechanistically explained or demonstrated. Case in point: First gravity was an attractive force between masses at a distance. This apparently attractive force has now been disected and found to be a combination of repulsive force and geometry (Earth and Moon, etc.)
5) There is no need, at all, for advocating attractive force. This is why the ideas of charge, plus or minus, can be logically discarded in favor of the concepts of replusion and non-repulsion.
6) The imposition of geometry on protons, electrons and nuclei is a logical extrapolation from the very well known geometry of molecules and chemical bonds. Practical chemistry, in the prediction of how to synthesize new molecules and to predict their behavior, is highly successful. It is all structure - that is, geometry.
7) Many rational minds regard the idea of a proton having geometry as being a demand for artificiality. This is a human prejudice.
Using geometry, the strong and weak nuclear forces are only repulsive. Magnetism simply becomes a focusing or channeling of gravitational flux. Molecules do not have attractive bonds but are pushed into existence directly by the Elysium and indirectly by the gravitational flux. Radioactive atoms are not unstable; they are vulnerable to collisions, which break them down. Nuclear fusion and the subsequent assembly of planets is easily explained. Their orbits and spin are easily explained. The creation of rings around a planet are easily explained. Moons are explained.
The creation of all isomers of all isotopes of all elements are explained - by geometry, repulsive force, collisions.

In summation, by choosing geometry as the fundamental characteristic of a proton, the whole solar system can be predicted with ease. However, all my thinking here remains only speculation.


Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by kcody</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
Here is another interesting question - "Why should it stop somewhere?"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Causality demands that every bit of substance has a history; in everyday terms, it had to have gotten there somehow. Also, every bit of structure has to be the result of some process; some expenditure of energy to establish order.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Why do you assume the phenomenon of existence is the result of cause and effect. In order to change or be changed, something MUST exist. This means cause and effect is a function of existence - not the reverse.
[url] www.theory-of-reciprocity.com [/url]

[Jim] "LB, You miss the point as is the case most of the time."

Yes, it seems that way to me as well.

[Gregg] 4) "The only force is repulsive force. An attractive force has never been mechanistically explained or demonstrated. Case in point: First gravity was an attractive force between masses at a distance. This apparently attractive force has now been disected and found to be a combination of repulsive force and geometry (Earth and Moon, etc.)"

I have a problem with the wording of #4. I would rephrase it the following way:

===
The only force is a pushing force. A pulling force has never been mechanistically explained or demonstrated. Case in point: First gravity was a pulling force between masses at a distance. This apparently pulling force has now been disected and found to be a combination of pushing force and geometry.
===

I'm still not completely happy with this wording. For example there seems to be the case of "pulling" something with a rope. But this pulling force does not involve a remote isolated mass, so I'll exclude such situations from consideration for now by saying "the only force *on a remote isolated mass* is a pushing force".

IOW, if I am standing on mass A and I want to exert a force on mass B some distance away, I must either go over to mass B and touch it [in which case it is no longer remote and isolated], or I must throw another particle, mass C, at it. When mass C hits mass B, mass B gets "pushed".

There is no way I can directly pull on mass B. But I might be able to do it <b>indirectly</b>, say by bouncing mass C off of mass D in such a way that it hits the back side of mass B and pushes mass B in my direction. I am in fact still pushing on mass B, but it looks like I'm pulling.


LB

[Gregg] "5) There is no need, at all, for advocating attractive force."

This statement seems to fly in the face of observation.

We do observe several different particles (protons and electrons and other "charged" particles) that exhibit attraction and/or repulsion under various circumstances. We also observe a number of particles (neutrons and Gregg Wilsons and other "uncharged" particles) that exhibit only attraction under all circumstances.

Referring to my wording change above, I would note that a pushing force can manifest itself as either attraction or repulsion. In a specific case the manifestation depends on many factors (mass, density, number of particles), including the intrinsic geometry of individual particles and the relative geometry of groups of particles. The farther you are from a given particle, of course, the less its geometry matters.

I believe that if you make a distinction between "repulsive force" and "pushing force" (and between direct and indirect - via interaction with other particles - application of a pushing force) this conflict can be eliminated.



LB

Or - maybe I'm missing your point, too?