Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

Well, Tom, I have the funniest feeling I am debating with Admiral Rickover. So I will keep a very close eye on the number of legs on my chair.

But back to a simple starting point. Lets have the gravitational flux and the Elysium. Light waves can travel but we don't have anything to originate them. Now throw in a single proton. What does it have to do? Only one thing: be in the way.

The gravitational flux will drive elysons towarf the proton. The elysons will pile up on the proton surface, thus compressing to a final, incompressible state of a "liquid". The simplest and most "natural" assumption is that a proton is a sphere. If so, then elysons on the surface have nowhere to "run" that is downhill from the gravitons. They have been literally forced into a corner. Since gravitons will still hit them, there will be momentum transfer to the elysons. The piled up elysons will "boil" and will go out as electromagnetic waves. So far, fine.

But now the proton has a "coulomb force" around it that is equal at every point. So how would a vast nebula of hydrogen atoms ever collapse inward? More importantly, how do we form a hydrogen molecule?

This is why I question that a proton would be a sphere and bring up the plausibility that it may have an asymmetric shape.

In a number of your writings, you state that the Elysium is more concentratated near matter than in empty space. You also mention that the Elysium medium around protons would be spongy. This certainly sounds like the Elysium medium can be compressible.

Gregg Wilson

I'm giving these last two messages thought as time permits. Because this gets into virgin territory, I'd like to let my thoughts mature for a day or two before displaying them here. I find I get shot down a lot less often that way.[] -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />I'm giving these last two messages thought as time permits. Because this gets into virgin territory, I'd like to let my thoughts mature for a day or two before displaying them here. I find I get shot down a lot less often that way.[] -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Shooting you down is not my objective. Your introduction of a gravitational flux and a light carrying medium has immensely changed my thinking on chemistry and nuclear physics. You may want to question a considerable amount of the accepted tradition of those two subjects.

The Dr. in nuclear engineering that you converse with came up with Oxygen-16 having "double magic".

Obviously, there are things to critically examine.....

Gregg Wilson

In the period of about 1900 to 1940 the concepts of the proton, neutron, electron, nucleus and atom were developed <b>in the intellectual absence of a gravitational flux and a light carrying medium.</b>

By necessity, it was reasoned that there had to be attractive forces as well as repulsive forces. This led to, in combination with electrical motor progress, to the idea of positive charge and negative charge. It also led to the assumption that the electron was a singular particle. In turn this led to the idea of chemical bonds, which implies an attractive force. However, if the reader examines the classical description of how electrons in orbits somehow achieve these bonds, with the positively charged nuclei, this highly convoluted and contradictory description makes Alice in Wonderland look completely sane.

Now we recognize (on this Metaresearch board) that there is a gravitational flux and a light carrying medium. With gravitons pushing elysons and protons in the way, one can reason out that these other two mediums push atoms into molecules, if possible. Attractive forces are unwarranted and unnecessary.

In chemistry (completely a subset of physics) advances in molecular geometry in the late 1950s led to the conclusion that the relevant electrons were rushing around pretending to be a cloud with a certain shape and orientation. Implicity, one could not proclaim that an electron might not be a singular particle. However, the shapes and orientations of the "clouds" are established experimental data.

Dr. Tom Van Flandern had to spend about 18 months, off and on, convincing me (thick skull)that a photon was not a singular particle but a wave within the light carrying medium. I would suggest that this kind of analysis should be applied to the electron. It could be a "construct" of elysons outside of the nucleus, which can flow in conductive metal.

A different analysis is needed for nuclei, but I would suggest that all forces are a push, momentum transfer occurs by collisions only, and particles can get in each other's way.

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 Gregg</i>
<br />By necessity, it was reasoned that there had to be attractive forces as well as repulsive forces. ... Attractive forces are unwarranted and unnecessary.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm still working on the previous messages, but will have limited time until this week-end.

Taking this response out of sequence, do you mean that if we rub amber with fur, and glass with silk, they will not attract one another? Or do you simply mean that the attraction can be explained by pushing forces similar to the way gravity can? -|Tom|-

[Gregg] "I would suggest that all forces are a push, momentum transfer occurs by collisions only, and particles can get in each other's way."

All three of these are core concepts of Meta Model. Perhaps you meant this post for a message board on a different Website?