The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Help on a hypothesis of gravity etc  (Read 6865 times)

Offline ask

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Help on a hypothesis of gravity etc
« on: 22/02/2008 21:02:29 »
Hi Everyone,

Please give some help on an idea of mine, I am a drop out from physics and have poor math skill.

?tron hypothesis

I thought, maybe there is a charged tiny thing exist and fill up the space (like ether). it is too small so we can not detect its mass/charge yet or it has no mass but only charge. Suppose it really exist and carry negative charge and its strength is like e/10^100 (let's call it ?tron).

Then, we can image ?trons attracted by proton/nucleus and form a dense ball around it. Same way ?trons repelled by electron and form an empty ball around it. Because the nucleus  attracts electron, the two balls (one dense and one empty ?tron ball) will attract each other and form atom.

In a light atom model, like H, we see two ?tron balls, one is the proton with dense ?trons around it, the other one is empty/loosed ?trons around electron. (kind of like an Earth sized beach ball float on Earth sized ocean. The ocean is the nuclear ball and the beach ball is the electron ball)

The H atom act as an dipole, has to marry another H to form H2 to be stable.

For a heavier atom like carbon, we see a denser nucleus ball with 6 empty electron balls around it.

In a very heavy atom, we see very dense nucleus ball with more layers of electron balls around it.

All the charges in all matters, act each other by electro force. Without ?trons fill up the space, there would be no EM waves.

A magnet's structure is like many layers of atoms partially polarized, one direction is nuclear concentrated and the other direction is electron concentrated.

The electron concentrated plane (south pole) repels near by ?trons and form an empty ?tron layer in space. This empty layer will induce ?trons in the near by space to form a dense ?tron layer and so on so on. The dense/loose ?tron layers will attract each other to form magnetic field. The force strength is defined by the density of the ?tron in the field (1/R^3).

The nucleus concentrated plane (north pole) attracts ?tron and form a dense ?tron layer, it induce near by ?trons to form an empty layer, the two layers attract each other and keep forming magnetic field.

Somehow, between matter/mass and matter, even the + - electrical charges are equal, it's net force is a weak attraction. The strength is defined by total charge (proportional to total mass) / R^2.

This is my best guess/explanation for gravity, magnetism and atom model.

Sorry about my poor English, be highly appreciate any comment/teaching/feedback.

Thanks ahead!
« Last Edit: 25/02/2008 19:47:51 by ask »


 

lyner

  • Guest
Re: Help on a hypothesis of gravity etc
« Reply #1 on: 22/02/2008 22:09:57 »
Interesting. And is this backed up by any empirical evidence?
 

Offline ask

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Help on a hypothesis of gravity etc
« Reply #2 on: 22/02/2008 23:36:33 »
No Sir.

All imagination, based on limited physics I learned.

Hope someone can design some test or give math model.
« Last Edit: 23/02/2008 04:00:51 by ask »
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Help on a hypothesis of gravity etc
« Reply #3 on: 23/02/2008 23:31:21 »
This model does not fit the experimental evidence in contrast to the conventional model which does.  "Ask"  why do you, who claim not to be an expert, feel so strongly that this idea is a good one in contrast to the conventional approach. 
 

Offline ask

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Help on a hypothesis of gravity etc
« Reply #4 on: 24/02/2008 00:36:01 »
This model does not fit the experimental evidence in contrast to the conventional model which does.  "Ask"  why do you, who claim not to be an expert, feel so strongly that this idea is a good one in contrast to the conventional approach. 


I am not strongly feel this idea is good. I just have doubts about the conventional model.

For example, why is EM wave a self propagation wave? Why is atom model so complicate? I think  my atomic model is better to explain a lot of things, like heat/energy transfer in matter, light bend in matter, why atoms are stable etc.

If ?tron exist as I thought, EM wave surely can travel in space without conventional theory.

As for magnetism and gravity, still a big mystery in science. I just offer my idea and hope for better answer.

If my hypothesis is logical, experts surely can design some tests to comfirm it.

I have a design for a propulsion system which is involved magnetism and ?tron , I put it here, see if someone can give it a thought. If it sounds viable, make one and test it.

newbielink:http://adleave.com/joe%20067.jpg [nonactive]

The above pic is a design of a propulsion system.

It is very simple. Some of you guys may have the access to build and test it.

The principle is, space is a magnetic field. If we rotate a fan that is made by superconducting material in a vacuum chamber and keep it below critical temperature, we should have a thrust of magnetic wind (?tron wind).

Maybe that's how UFO's fly around. Because magnetic wind moves no mass, the new motor should be high efficiency.

Anyway, I had those ideas for so long, really want some expert opnion. Thanks for help!









« Last Edit: 24/02/2008 00:39:41 by ask »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Help on a hypothesis of gravity etc
« Reply #5 on: 24/02/2008 19:04:05 »
" I just have doubts about the conventional model."
Why?

"For example, why is EM wave a self propagation wave? "
It follows from Maxwell's calculations on electric and magnetic forces.
"Why is atom model so complicate?"
Because it needs to explain lots of complicated behaviour.
"I think  my atomic model is better to explain a lot of things, like heat/energy transfer in matter, light bend in matter, why atoms are stable etc."
It doesn't, for example, seem to explain spectroscopy, whereas normal, conventional physics does.



 

Offline ask

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Help on a hypothesis of gravity etc
« Reply #6 on: 24/02/2008 19:58:17 »
" I just have doubts about the conventional model."
Why?

"For example, why is EM wave a self propagation wave? "
It follows from Maxwell's calculations on electric and magnetic forces.
"Why is atom model so complicate?"
Because it needs to explain lots of complicated behaviour.
"I think  my atomic model is better to explain a lot of things, like heat/energy transfer in matter, light bend in matter, why atoms are stable etc."
It doesn't, for example, seem to explain spectroscopy, whereas normal, conventional physics does.





If ?trons exist, EM wave surely can travel in space without Maxwell's calculations or modem theory.

What complicated behaviour? Will you list them and let me trying to explain by my hypothesis?

Thanks for help! 
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Help on a hypothesis of gravity etc
« Reply #7 on: 25/02/2008 20:09:22 »
If the fairies at the bottom of my garden exist then they may be able to make some ?trons for you.

Would your ?tron theory give the correct value for the speed of light?

Spectroscopy- for example Fraunhoffer's lines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_line
would do as an example of fairly complex behaviour from atoms.

Can your theory do a better job of explaining it than conventional physics? In fact there's a more important thing here; Can your theory explain anything (in any detail)?
If so can it explain anything that "ordinary" physics can't explain?
If not then what purpose does it serve?
 

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 716
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Help on a hypothesis of gravity etc
« Reply #8 on: 26/02/2008 04:55:28 »
Please give some help on an idea of mine, I am a drop out from physics and have poor math skill.
Here are some questions.
1) Would you pay $40 to go to a piano concert given by a tone deaf individual who had never played a piano in his life and had lost three fingers?
2) Would you get into a taxi driven by a blind man?
3) Would you allow your next door neighbour to remove your appendix, unless that neighbour was a qualified surgeon?
4) If the answer to all the above is 'No', why would you think you have any chance of offering a theory that is an improvement on current theories?
 

Offline ask

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Help on a hypothesis of gravity etc
« Reply #9 on: 26/02/2008 11:15:46 »
Imagine electron is as big as moon, we smash it into 10^100 little pieces, smash 1000 electrons. Then we put them in a 10^8 moon sized perfect container (out space, vacuum, nothing can come in or out, the wall will not absorb the little pieces or electron or anything).

Now image we put an electron into the container, shall we see an empty ball around the electron? (Out side the ball are the little charged pieces)

If we knock the electron, shall we see a wave travel in the container? What's the speed?

If we move the electron, shall we see turbulence or vortex? Is that vortex has something to do with magnetic field?

If we put another proton into the container, shall we see it attracts some little pieces and form a dense ball around it? Shall we see a dense ball marry the empty ball and form H atom? 


Just found this. Electron filmed first time. newbielink:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23336318/ [nonactive]
« Last Edit: 28/02/2008 23:36:57 by ask »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Help on a hypothesis of gravity etc
« Reply #9 on: 26/02/2008 11:15:46 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums