Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: ChanRasjid on 12/09/2018 15:29:41
-
I have a unpublished paper (10 pages; find at my website) on : "Coulomb Electric Gravity And A Simple Unified Theory SUT" :
Gravitation comes by the excess of the attractive forces between unlike charges over the repulsive forces between like charges. O.F. Mossotti in 1830, a French physics teacher at the University of Buenos Aires, first propagated the idea. Faraday and Weber gave serious consideration to Mossotti hypothesis but neither Weber nor Faraday could have discovered inverse gravitation as been consequence of Coulombs law as they did not yet know subatomic structure of atoms - electrons protons.
If the electric constant for Coulomb repulsion is k = 1/4πε₀, electric constant attraction is k(1 + d) where d = G/2ke² ; G the gravitational constant, e the electron charge. Electric gravity needs strict conditions:
1) neutron within the nucleus must replaced by a proton and nuclear electron.
2) Conservation of mass in atoms (repudiated of mass-energy equivalence and E=mc²); this mean the neutron's contribution of mass within the nucleus replaced by mass-proton + mass-electron. The atomic mass of a nuclide is mass number in amu.
1) and 2) above supported by another paper of mine :
"Our Nuclear Physics Theory All Wrong (Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate?)"
Cavendish Experiment in Water: Coulomb electric gravity could be verified through a Cavendish experiment in the medium of water. In k(1 + d) where d = G/2ke², the permittivity would be replaced by relative permittivity of water 81 X. This would mean gravitation in water would be weaker by 81 X in water. An experiment torque factor 81 is an enormous figure! It would never unnoticed if Coulomb electric gravity is correct.
ABSTRACT: SUT is an aether theory. The fundamental substance of the universe is the electric charge, positive and negative. The aether is the substance of space, a superposition of two uniform
charge density +ρ a and −ρ a . There is only a single universal force, the Coulomb electrical forces of attraction and repulsion. Gravitation is the result of a small excess of Coulomb attraction over repulsion. There is no neutron within the nucleus of atoms; nuclear electrons are introduced instead. Mass conservation is valid. SUT develops an electric mechanics with no need of a mass as an independent physical dimension. An electric mass defined as volume/charge of charged particles completely replaces the gravitational mass concept.
Best regards,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew.
-
Cavendish experiment in water:
It is simple to do today, but cannot use oscillation timing to determine torque of twisted torsion wire; must use technique of a counter angle twist restore torsion beam with small lead balls to original neutral point. The small balls on beam and two large lead balls must be fixedly support from some frames above in order that sets of balls may be immersed in 2 container of water from below to submerge balls separately; this would be the water version of Cavendish.
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew.
-
The "Cavendish experiment in water" is an interesting idea, but it's difficult.
How about using other mechanisms to measure gravity with, and without water?
For example, how about measuring the height of satellites s they go round the world; if water made a difference to gravity, then it would affect the orbits.
Now, let's consider how we might do this experiment.
We could get a bunch of satellites with very good clocks and set them in orbit round the planet.
Then we could use them to triangulate the location of base stations on Earth's surface based on the calculated orbits and the time taken for the signals to arrive.
If water made a significant difference then we would see anomalies in the calculated positions.
We did that.
It's called GPS.
It works.
Your idea is proven wrong.
-
On a related note, re.
(Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate?)
Yes, it is.
-
The "Cavendish experiment in water" is an interesting idea, but it's difficult.
How about using other mechanisms to measure gravity with, and without water?
For example, how about measuring the height of satellites s they go round the world; if water made a difference to gravity, then it would affect the orbits.
Now, let's consider how we might do this experiment.
We could get a bunch of satellites with very good clocks and set them in orbit round the planet.
Then we could use them to triangulate the location of base stations on Earth's surface based on the calculated orbits and the time taken for the signals to arrive.
If water made a significant difference then we would see anomalies in the calculated positions.
We did that.
It's called GPS.
It works.
Your idea is proven wrong.
Please go emc2fails have many varied details of argumentation. Please add a dotcom suffix.
This wrong by big margin : "If water made a significant difference then we would see anomalies in the calculated positions". Planet satellites orbitals of m1 and earth M2 depended solely on center-mass of object m1 and M2 - no dependent on distribution of earths material uneveness; core molten iron, surface ocean water same Kepler elliptical orbits results - no anomalies would be found. This is particle dynamics - point to point particle dynamics. Great difference if space between satellites and earth surface all water!
Mass spectrometry and Penning trap found mass-deficits because they use F = q(v X B) as strict mathematics and absolute to all precision - but Lorentz magnetic never ever once verified directly. Precision of Penning trap undoubted to high precesion 10¯¹⁰, but if weigh atom masses, only can take about 4 significant figures - the rest unusable. No need us Penning trap for atom masses, take mass = mass number amu.
Chan Rasjid.
-
Planet satellites orbitals of m1 and earth M2 depended solely on center-mass of object m1 and M2 - no dependent on distribution of earths material uneveness; core molten iron, surface ocean water same Kepler elliptical orbits results - no anomalies would be found.
No
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/features/F_Measuring_Gravity_With_Grace.html
if weigh atom masses, only can take about 4 significant figures
No
https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-silicon-spheres-and-international-avogadro-project
-
2) Conservation of mass in atoms (repudiated of mass-energy equivalence and E=mc²); this mean the neutron's contribution of mass within the nucleus replaced by mass-proton + mass-electron. The atomic mass of a nuclide is mass number in amu.
Neutrons weigh more than the simple sum of the electron mass and the proton mass.
-
2) Conservation of mass in atoms (repudiated of mass-energy equivalence and E=mc²); this mean the neutron's contribution of mass within the nucleus replaced by mass-proton + mass-electron. The atomic mass of a nuclide is mass number in amu.
Neutrons weigh more than the simple sum of the electron mass and the proton mass.
We don't know mass of neutron ever. My "Mass spectrometry wrong (go emc2failsDotCom)" shows if atom mass is weigh with chemical scale, atom mass is same as mass number as amu. Proof is analysing Sodium fluoride composition with analytical balance. So no mass defect implying all ideas of "binding energy" from E= mc² wrong - no mass defect means it cannot have an "m" to put into E=mc² (it is also a clear proof E=mc² refuted). All nuclear energy is still only Coulomb potential within nucleus, but extremely great.
Mass of neutron never ever measured, but only deduced from binding energy of deuterium by combining with E=mc² giving wrong neutron mass. So contribution of neutron mass within nucleus now replaced with exact (mass proton + mass nuclear electron). Now 1 kg of any neutral body (any matter composition) will have exact same number of (electron, proton) pairs. Only this will make electric gravity correct as Newtonian mass gravitation.
Chan Rasjid.
-
Proof is analysing Sodium fluoride composition with analytical balance.
So when was this proof obtained? By who? What teams successfully replicated the results? What peer-reviewed journal was it published in?
-
Proof is analysing Sodium fluoride composition with analytical balance.
So when was this proof obtained? By who? What teams successfully replicated the results? What peer-reviewed journal was it published in?
It is not proven yet now as no one like to do the experiment. If you are university physics professor, please ask your students to confirm the atom mass composition of sodium fluoride and do a comparison, then who is right and wrong would be known. Now still not sure if mass conservation good or Einstein E=mc2 best together with mass-energy equivalence.
Chan Rasjid.
-
It is not proven yet
So... are you using an experiment that hasn't even been done as evidence that mass spectroscopy is wrong or what?
-
It is not proven yet
So... are you using an experiment that hasn't even been done as evidence that mass spectroscopy is wrong or what?
It is also not proven yet that the mass spectrometry weighing giving mass defects correct. Only the experiment decides between mass conservation or mass spectrometry.
Now assuming mass conservation good (mass spectrometry wrong) gives an electric gravity which explains all planetary gravitation per current universal gravitation and this is like verification of electric gravitation.
Chan Rasjid.
-
It is also not proven yet that the mass spectrometry weighing giving mass defects correct.
We understand enough about physics to know that it is. Do you really not think that we are capable of measuring the strength of electric fields in the laboratory?
Now assuming mass conservation good (mass spectrometry wrong)
Conservation of mass does not make mass spectrometry wrong. The photons released when an atomic nucleus is formed have relativistic mass. Add that to the mass of the newly formed nucleus and you get a mass equal to each nucleon which it is composed of. Besides, when an electron and a positron annihilate, they turn into nothing but photons. Those photons have the energies predicted by relativity. E=mc2 is not in question. It has been verified to high accuracy.
gives an electric gravity which explains all planetary gravitation per current universal gravitation and this is like verification of electric gravitation.
No it doesn't. If gravity was merely the result of electromagnetic interactions, then gravitational waves would be identical to electromagnetic waves. They are not. Gravitational waves were detected in 2015 and behaved in the manner predicted by relativity. They stretch and compress space, which is something that LIGO was designed specifically to detect. Electromagnetic waves do not do that.
-
Proof is analysing Sodium fluoride composition with analytical balance.
So when was this proof obtained? By who? What teams successfully replicated the results? What peer-reviewed journal was it published in?
It is not proven yet now as no one like to do the experiment. If you are university physics professor, please ask your students to confirm the atom mass composition of sodium fluoride and do a comparison, then who is right and wrong would be known. Now still not sure if mass conservation good or Einstein E=mc2 best together with mass-energy equivalence.
Chan Rasjid.
Do you not understand that "experiments" like this are done every day?
People make materials like sodium fluoride.
If you were "right" then they wouldn't get the amounts they expected.
But they do.
So you re wrong.
-
It is also not proven yet that the mass spectrometry weighing giving mass defects correct.
Repeating this claim does not make it true.
It is wrong.
I pointed this out to you.
No
https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-silicon-spheres-and-international-avogadro-project
-
...
Do you not understand that "experiments" like this are done every day?
People make materials like sodium fluoride.
If you were "right" then they wouldn't get the amounts they expected.
But they do.
So you re wrong.
Let me have mass composition ratio NaF as Na/F. Where you get the data. Give also error estimate.
Chan Rasjid.
-
It is also not proven yet that the mass spectrometry weighing giving mass defects correct.
Repeating this claim does not make it true.
It is wrong.
I pointed this out to you.
No
https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-silicon-spheres-and-international-avogadro-project
I think it is very good to define a superior SI kilogram.
Chan Rasjid.
-
What do you think is special about sodium fluoride?
People have looked at the mass spectrum of it
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0168117690800639
if there was anything unexpected they would have noticed.
This paper uses a ToF machine so it's going to be high resolution- probably something like 1 part in a million.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337371/
Do you actually have any evidence that there is anything unexpected about mass spectroscopic data?
Do you have any evidence of anything that is a "problem", or are you just making stuff up?
-
What do you think is special about sodium fluoride?
People have looked at the mass spectrum of it
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0168117690800639
if there was anything unexpected they would have noticed.
This paper uses a ToF machine so it's going to be high resolution- probably something like 1 part in a million.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337371/
Do you actually have any evidence that there is anything unexpected about mass spectroscopic data?
Do you have any evidence of anything that is a "problem", or are you just making stuff up?
You have not given me the data composition of sodium fluoride as I requested.
Have you read my paper: "Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate?" Why mass spectrometry is wrong is all there, including the most famous Penning trap measures atom mass to 4/5 figures not 10/11 as promoted.
If you have not read my paper, I don't know if we are debating the same thing. My conclusion Penning trap measures atom mass only good till 4/5 figures at the very best!
Chan Rasjid.
-
There are 2 experiments that could verify electric gravitation unequivocally.
see papers at my website (emc2failsDotCom)
http://www.emc2fails.com (http://www.emc2fails.com)
1) free fall acceleration of electrons greater than that of proton by a factor of 1836. This would completely repudiate the current prediction that all "gravitational" mass falls at 9.8 m/s/s. But such experiments almost impossible to do as they have tried free fall experiments of electrons to test general relativity gravity. No way to eliminate electromagnetic interference.
2) Cavendish experiment with water medium. The original large lead balls of the original Cavendish experiment replace by two huge tanks of water. The small balls would still be lead. Now the distance from the center-of-mass of the water to the lead ball would pass through water - a dielectric - for most of the distance. If electric gravity is good, gravitation in water would show a factor difference of 70-80 X weaker - an enormous value easily detected. This experiment would not cost a billion dollars! Would any university department be interested to perform such an experiment?
Chan Rasjid.
-
Just nonsense, it must be right?
-
As far as I understand it, your contention is that there is no "mass defect".
The mass of a sodium atom is exactly 23 times that of a hydrogen atom, and that of fluorine is exactly 19 times that of hydrogen.
Have I understood that correctly?
OK, rather than sodium fluoride, let's look at carbon tetrafluoride.
In principle, we can get mono-isotopic 12C 19F4
In practice it hardly matters that there's the 14C version present because the mass of any ions from it will differ by 2 from the ions we are looking for and they can easily be ignored.
If we look at the spectrum we will see ions corresponding to CF4 , CF3 , CF2, and CF4
Lets focus on CF4 and CF3 ions
If you are right, then the masses of the ions will be exactly 88 and 69
And the ratio of their masses will be exactly 88/69
That's 1.2753623
If the rest of the world is right then the ratio of the masses will be 87.993612 / 68.995209
That's 1.27535829
Now, you say in your paper that mass spectroscopy can give a precision of 1 in 10^10.
So it would be easy to measure the difference between those two ratios (about 3 ppm) - especially since they would be measured in the same experiment at the same time, with the same equipment.
(For clarity, I have ignored the mass of the electrons that are lost to make the ions- but it doesn't affect the principle or the outcome)
Even clearer results could be obtained by looking at other ions.
For example we could compare the bare carbon ion C+ Mass 12 (from both your viewpoint, and everyone else's) or
with the CF+ ion Mass 31 from your perspective or 30.998403 from everyone else's.
The ratio should be 30.998403/12 or 31/12
The disparity there is about 50 ppm.
That's easily within the range of a commercial "off the peg" high resolution mass spectrometer.
If there was no mass defect, people who do mass spectroscopy would have noticed.
There's no need to refer anything back to a classical analysis of NaF or anything else.
Now you may say that it's unlikely that anyone has looked carefully at the spectrum of CF4.
Fair enough.
But the whole point of using high resolution mass spectrometers is to distinguish between molecules - for example octanone with mass 128.120115
and naphthalene with mass 128.062600
They do that, every day- that's the reason for spending the money on these machines.
According to your idea- where there is no mass defect, those two molecules would have exactly the same mass.
They don't.
Mass spectroscopy is, at least, close enough to right rto prove that you are wrong.
-
As far as I understand it, your contention is that there is no "mass defect".
The mass of a sodium atom is exactly 23 times that of a hydrogen atom, and that of fluorine is exactly 19 times that of hydrogen.
Have I understood that correctly?
OK, rather than sodium fluoride, let's look at carbon tetrafluoride.
In principle, we can get mono-isotopic 12C 19F4
In practice it hardly matters that there's the 14C version present because the mass of any ions from it will differ by 2 from the ions we are looking for and they can easily be ignored.
If we look at the spectrum we will see ions corresponding to CF4 , CF3 , CF2, and CF4
Lets focus on CF4 and CF3 ions
If you are right, then the masses of the ions will be exactly 88 and 69
And the ratio of their masses will be exactly 88/69
That's 1.2753623
If the rest of the world is right then the ratio of the masses will be 87.993612 / 68.995209
That's 1.27535829
Now, you say in your paper that mass spectroscopy can give a precision of 1 in 10^10.
So it would be easy to measure the difference between those two ratios (about 3 ppm) - especially since they would be measured in the same experiment at the same time, with the same equipment.
(For clarity, I have ignored the mass of the electrons that are lost to make the ions- but it doesn't affect the principle or the outcome)
Even clearer results could be obtained by looking at other ions.
For example we could compare the bare carbon ion C+ Mass 12 (from both your viewpoint, and everyone else's) or
with the CF+ ion Mass 31 from your perspective or 30.998403 from everyone else's.
The ratio should be 30.998403/12 or 31/12
The disparity there is about 50 ppm.
That's easily within the range of a commercial "off the peg" high resolution mass spectrometer.
If there was no mass defect, people who do mass spectroscopy would have noticed.
There's no need to refer anything back to a classical analysis of NaF or anything else.
Now you may say that it's unlikely that anyone has looked carefully at the spectrum of CF4.
Fair enough.
But the whole point of using high resolution mass spectrometers is to distinguish between molecules - for example octanone with mass 128.120115
and naphthalene with mass 128.062600
They do that, every day- that's the reason for spending the money on these machines.
According to your idea- where there is no mass defect, those two molecules would have exactly the same mass.
They don't.
Mass spectroscopy is, at least, close enough to right rto prove that you are wrong.
You wrote: "As far as I understand it, your contention is that there is no "mass defect".The mass of a sodium atom is exactly 23 times that of a hydrogen atom, and that of fluorine is exactly 19 times that of hydrogen."
You are correct. This is exactly the contention in my paper :"Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate ?"
I don't know about your "spectrum" spectroscopy physics. Why you talk about : "That's easily within the range of a commercial "off the peg" high resolution mass spectrometer." If you insist I "start to learn more..." before I start writing paper on physics, I have nothing more to much say and just stop to give answers to your arguments.
The point is cannot use any technique of mass measurements like ions deflections in electric/magnetic fields - these are related to mass spectrometry and the Lorentz force law is not verified! You don't disprove mass spectrometry using any related technique like ions spectrum, etc...but by using verified scale balances only.
You have to do simple mass composition analysis of CF3/CF4 using chemical methods, the weights are obtained from precision scale balance - not from ions spectrum!
So what is the mass composition of CF4 as C/4F. Where do you get the data from? What is the error estimate.
Chan Rasjid.
-
...
But the whole point of using high resolution mass spectrometers is to distinguish between molecules - for example octanone with mass 128.120115
and naphthalene with mass 128.062600
They do that, every day- that's the reason for spending the money on these machines.
According to your idea- where there is no mass defect, those two molecules would have exactly the same mass.
They don't.
Mass spectroscopy is, at least, close enough to right to prove that you are wrong.
if octanone and naphthalene have different chemical formulas (same isotopes), they don't have the same mass - by whatever means of measurement!
Chan Rasjid.
-
You are correct. This is exactly the contention in my paper :"Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate ?"
OK
And, do you think that a molecule of naphthalene made from 10 carbon atoms and 8 hydrogen atoms would weigh exactly 128?
At least, for the molecules where all the atoms are the "light" versions- rather than heavier isotopes i.e. 12C101H8
?
Surely 10 * 12 + 8 is 128
What about Octanone 12C 8 1H1616O ?
Again, surely 12*8 + 16*1 +16 =128
So, if there's no mass defect a naphthalene molecule made entirely of those isotopes will weigh the same as a molecule of octanone made from the isotopes indicated.
Do you agree that they should, in your model- where there is no mass defect- have the same mass?
-
If you insist I "start to learn more..." before I start writing paper on physics, I have nothing more to much say and just stop to give answers to your arguments.
Why do you feel that refusal to learn is helpful?
The output of a mass spectrometer is a graph of signal, i.e. the number of ions detected, vs mass of the ions.
Here is a (very low resolution) spectrum of CF4
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C75730&Mask=200#Mass-Spec
-
You are correct. This is exactly the contention in my paper :"Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate ?"
OK
And, do you think that a molecule of naphthalene made from 10 carbon atoms and 8 hydrogen atoms would weigh exactly 128?
At least, for the molecules where all the atoms are the "light" versions- rather than heavier isotopes i.e. 12C101H8
?
Surely 10 * 12 + 8 is 128
What about Octanone 12C 8 1H1616O ?
Again, surely 12*8 + 16*1 +16 =128
So, if there's no mass defect a naphthalene molecule made entirely of those isotopes will weigh the same as a molecule of octanone made from the isotopes indicated.
Do you agree that they should, in your model- where there is no mass defect- have the same mass?
Yes, I am wrong here. Octanone and napthalene have the same mass according to my model of mass conservation - both have mass 128 amu.
If the the mass spectrum of octanone and napthalene differs and could be used as a technique to identify ions, its very useful. But it says nothing about how the two different molecules would weigh with a scale balance. There is no rule that with deflections in electric or magnetic fields showing difference, their true mass must be different - only Lorentz law says it but law is not verified.
Again, can you tell me the element mass composition of octanone or napthalene in amu. Where you get the data from? What are the error estimate?
Chan Rasjid.
-
If you insist I "start to learn more..." before I start writing paper on physics, I have nothing more to much say and just stop to give answers to your arguments.
Why do you feel that refusal to learn is helpful?
The output of a mass spectrometer is a graph of signal, i.e. the number of ions detected, vs mass of the ions.
Here is a (very low resolution) spectrum of CF4
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C75730&Mask=200#Mass-Spec
By nature, I do not like to learn more than needed at hand. I hope for a Nobel prize without a need for a B.Sc degree - its called utter faith in lucky luck! And I also have utter faith that when I need help, someone at the right place and the right time would pop up to offer me the needed help.
Please! Help me to debunk the binding energy theory of Emc2 from mass deficits and the data from NIST. I don't know about the spectrum shown in the link. Does it relate directly to the mass of the molecule - what balance scale or weighing technique is used to get the molecule mass in amu. Or are they deduced through some theory formula?
Chan Rasjid.
-
But it says nothing about how the two different molecules would weigh with a scale balance.
Yes, it does.
Gravitational mass and inertial mass have been shown to be the same in every single experiment that looked at the question.
It is currently known to be true within 1 part in 10^17
https://web.archive.org/web/20100401114244/http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/PAG/index_files/Page1098.htm
Again, can you tell me the element mass composition of octanone or napthalene in amu.
What do you mean?
There is nothing particularly special about them- they just happen to have the same mass number.
You can find data on them on wiki.
I used this calculator to get the true masses
https://www.sisweb.com/referenc/tools/exactmass.htm
There are others.
The masses are going to be correct to within a part in a million.
If you want to look up the error analysis, I'm sure you can find it on-line somewhere.
And if Lorentz law didn't work then a lot of equipment like magnetrons and cyclotrons would fail.
So , we know it works.
How would you explain how two ions- derived from octanone and from naphthalene give apparently different masses in a mass spectrometer?
How would the Lorentz force "know" to treat them differently?
Also, because you have (laughably) refused to find out how mass spectrometers work, you don't understand that some of them don't rely on magnetic fields to separate different masses.
In those machines Lorentz force is irrelevant.
How do you explain why machines that use magnetic fields give the same result as those which do not?
-
By nature, I do not like to learn more than needed at hand.
It is clear that you need more knowledge at hand to stop you saying things that make no sense.
I hope for a Nobel prize without a need for a B.Sc degree
You will certainly not succeed in debunking mass spectrometry unless you understand mass spectrometry.
You will just keep making a fool of yourself.
-
But it says nothing about how the two different molecules would weigh with a scale balance.
Yes, it does.
Gravitational mass and inertial mass have been shown to be the same in every single experiment that looked at the question.
It is currently known to be true within 1 part in 10^17
https://web.archive.org/web/20100401114244/http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/PAG/index_files/Page1098.htm
You say the 2 molecules weigh different, I say same 128 amu.
Again, can you tell me the element mass composition of octanone or napthalene in amu.
What do you mean?
There is nothing particularly special about them- they just happen to have the same mass number.
You can find data on them on wiki.
I used this calculator to get the true masses
https://www.sisweb.com/referenc/tools/exactmass.htm
There are others.
The masses are going to be correct to within a part in a million.
If you want to look up the error analysis, I'm sure you can find it on-line somewhere.
I posed the wrong question. Just go back to NaF.
Give me the mass composition of NaF in Na/F. Where do you get the data. Give some idea of error estimate? Hope I get my data this 3rd time asking.
And if Lorentz law didn't work then a lot of equipment like magnetrons and cyclotrons would fail.
So , we know it works.
"magnetrons and cyclotrons would fail" No! They would run as usual as long as the power plug is plug to a power point. Only thing is: "Anything in, garbage out" from those equipments.
Please know that my mentioned 2 papers earlier demolish all of current modern physics - all known modern relativistic physics - CERN, Standard model,...It is like a tsunami covering every inch of the earth surface! And what you see when the waters go away is what is the equivalent in the landscape of the physics world from my 2 papers. Nothing familiar remains!
Now you know why they should actually give me the Nobel prize in physics 2009!
How would you explain how two ions- derived from octanone and from naphthalene give apparently different masses in a mass spectrometer?
How would the Lorentz force "know" to treat them differently?
You ask: "How would the Lorentz force "know" to treat them differently?"
Answer: "How would I know how the Lorentz force know!"
In ancient times, when an apple falls on a persons head, he learns to avoid walking under an apple tree!
Also, because you have (laughably) refused to find out how mass spectrometers work, you don't understand that some of them don't rely on magnetic fields to separate different masses.
In those machines Lorentz force is irrelevant.
How do you explain why machines that use magnetic fields give the same result as those which do not?
Tell me other than electric and magnetic deflections, whats the other. [I may be wrong again]
Chan Rasjid.
-
You say the 2 molecules weigh different, I say same 128 amu.
The evidence shows that their masses are different.
You are simply wrong.
This sort of thing might help
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class-12th-physics-india/moving-charges-and-magnetism/in-in-magnets-and-magnetic-force/v/mass-spectrometer
-
Answer: "How would I know how the Lorentz force know!"
You claim that it does.
If you don't know how, why do you make the claim?
-
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the existence of gravitational waves refutes your idea that gravity is caused by electromagnetism.
In addition to that, gravitational lensing also falsifies your model. Photons do not have electric charge and therefore are neither attracted to nor repelled by electric fields. If gravity was just a residual electromagnetic field, then the Sun's gravity would not be capable of deflecting the path of starlight and the observation that confirmed the existence of this phenomenon way back in 1919 would not have occurred.
A third physical fact in contradiction to your model is the existence of proton-proton fusion. You simultaneously claim that the strong nuclear force does not actually exist and that mass deficits do not exist. If this were true, then protons fusing together to form a deuterium or helium-4 nucleus would be impossible since, (1) the only force present is the repulsive electromagnetic force between the protons, since you deny that an attractive strong nuclear force exists and (2) since you claim that a neutron is a simple addition of a proton and an electron, you shouldn't be capable of converting protons into neutrons since the neutron weighs more than the proton. The only way this can be the case would be if a bound neutron actually does indeed weigh less than a free proton. However, your model denies that this is possible because such a thing requires mass deficits to exist.
And yes, we have confirmed the existence of proton-proton fusion: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/underground-experiment-confirms-what-powers-sun
and
https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.02432