[Professor Mega-Mind]

................Twisted Force
The electrons , etc. , respond to a different aspect of the differentiated uni-grav (root) force .   Think different electron-shells (or onion layers) .  Gravity being "root" doesn't mean it is strongest , just fundamental .
 The difficulty with particle physics is that it doesn't manipulate or explain the fabric of space itself , or it's limitations and behaviors .  There is much more to space , than  just particles and their interactions.   
P.M.

[Kryptid]

The electrons , etc. , respond to a different aspect of the differentiated uni-grav (root) force .

Then it's wrong to say that the strong force is gravity, because electrons do respond to gravity while not responding to the strong force.

Think different electron-shells (or onion layers) .

What do electron shells have to do with this?

[Professor Mega-Mind]

...................Uni-Grav
Paleo-gravity ; before it splits into the four basic forces .  Strong Force is definitely NOT gravity itself , but rather it's derivative .
By the way , y'ever notice : 4 forces, 4 dimensions ?
P.M. 

[jeffreyH]

If you wish to talk nonsense this is not the part of the forum to do that. If you don't know any mainstream physics that's OK. This is quite a good place to learn some.

[Kryptid]

Strong Force is definitely NOT gravity itself

Glad you realize that. Now we can discard the whole "protons are black holes that bind together via gravity" argument.

[Professor Mega-Mind]

...Not what I said .
Did refer to the gravity/strong force similarity mentioned by Haramein .
P.M. 

[Kryptid]

Did refer to the gravity/strong force similarity mentioned by Haramein .

So are you saying it's gravity or not? Because his black hole argument seems to say they are the same force.

[Professor Mega-Mind]

.......Semantics .
I am saying that my personal view is that all four derive from "stem" gravity .  It is distributed by a dimensional process , or prism , that we don't yet understand .  We are quite far from understanding what the substance of space actually is , how it was formed , or how it functions .  Pride aside , we are just beginning to scratch the surface .
P.M.

[mad aetherist]

Gravity is due to the acceleration of aether into mass where the aether is annihilated.  Inertia is due to the acceleration of mass. Gravity & inertia are both due to the flow of aether. Every quantum thing has mass. Aether is subquantum & has no mass. Gravity at a micro level might have little to do with Newton's 1/RR.

Electrostatic & electrodynamic & magnetic forces are probly due to an excitation of aether, ie a vibration or spin or swirl etc.

If elementary particles are flattish then  they can be very close together.  This might affect gravitational attraction at the micro level (& em attraction-repulsion).   If an electron is large & hollow & if a proton is small enough to fit inside an electron then the spacing can in a sense be zero (this would give a neutron). 

[AlanM]

Just a suggestion:  Do what Stephen Hawking couldn't.  Play with a few spherical magnets, including non-magnetised ball bearings of different sizes, like I and my granddaughter Zahra have.  The first thing that might strike you (painfully) on one of your digits is a pair of magnets.  This is called the Engineering Approach.  It led me to my first conjecture, via the thought that magnetism isn't granular, but divisible into ever-decreasing quanta until we get to the ultimate form that Maxwell calculated all those years ago.  Massless magnetism is what we can discern as quarks.  We have given quarks six flavours - up/down, charmed/strange/ and top/bottom.  One pair of those just means north/south magnetism. Another just means back/wards/forwards relative to time. And the third pair is just clockwise spin/anticlockwise spin.
So
You might connect all that to the thought that nothing curves space more strongly than magnetism.  But wait.  Consider the mighty electron. Look at an atom of hydrogen. The proton consists of three quarks, two ups and a down (or maybe that should be two downs and an up. It doesn't really matter. One's an antiquark, closely entangled with its quark.  there is no more mysterious thing than the ability for the positive charge of the proton to be cancelled by a single electron buzzing around that proton like a bee in a cathedral. The electron can't really fly about fast enough to quite do the job. Its willing assistent, the almost massless something-ino, has to help out.  Whether the -ino is a gravitino, a neutrino, or a magnetrino is the question that needs to be decided.
I tend to think that that the -ino has to add a bit more negativity, rather than gravity or positronity to cancel the positivity of the three matter/antimatter quarks.  Adding quarkinos is not an answer either, though I'm often wrong about arithmetic, never mind mathematics.
Well, I hope this is helpful.
By the way, the Final Book published on behalf of Stephen rather startled me when I got to Nelson (page 111 in cricketing jargon).  The statement that black holes can't emit anything has to be a mistake.  Hawking radiation does exist. Quasars and neutron stars are detected by polar gamma rays doing gymnastics in space. Two colliding black holes have been detected because their polar radiation causes ripples in the fabric of space.  From our universe to our entangled anti-universe we have anti-radiation and anti-matter streaming through the black hole portal, so looked from inside the black hole (well, it has to be a sphere to be symmetrical with us, doesn't it?) the anti-matter life forms would never say our 'white' hole (no 'racism' intended, it's really just a word that implies 'anti-black' hole).
If you would like to see how all my conjecturing began, try the Naked Science Forum topics 713717 (symmetry there, eh ?) and the new theory the Naked Scientists made it, Topic 71376 (and Many Thanks to them) .
  Best Wishes, AlanM (and from Zahra too, of course.)

[hamdani yusuf]

He says that if you model a pair of protons as two black holes, the gravitational force between them turns out to be equal to the strength of the strong force. To be fair, a pair of proton-mass black holes could have an attractive force acting between them that was equal to what we call the strong force if they were sufficiently close together. The problem with this, however, is that the electrical repulsion between those charged black holes is going to increase at the exact same rate as the gravitational attraction is. So changing the distance between those black holes will actually have no affect on how strongly they attract or repel each other (and the repulsion will be much, much higher).One could get around that problem if you posit that the inverse-square law ceases to operate for gravity and/or the electromagnetic force at extremely tiny distances, but evidence for this is currently lacking. Even if you did make a model where that was true, then it would need to explain why it doesn't work for many different particles. Electrons, muons and tau particles all have mass, so they should be able to bind together using the strong force if the strong force is a form of gravity. Yet they don't.Then there are particle experiments that demonstrate the existence of gluon particles, which were predicted in advance in order to explain how the strong force operates. The strong force also has its own conservation laws that do not apply to gravity (hypercharge and color charge).

The gravity attraction between 2 protons doesn't have to overcome their electrical repulsion, because diproton is extremely unstable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_(diproton)
Proton also has non-zero electric polarizability, which can reduce repulsion at close distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

[Professor Mega-Mind]

........Clarification .
To be as clear as possible ; my big idea here is that there was/is one primeval force : "Uni-Grav" .  When everything was one , U.G. was all there was .  Oneness was powerfully connected to itself , and it was NOT letting go .  At some "point" , obscene energy was injected .  Oneness shattered , or "fresneled" , into four dimensions , along with four accompanying physical forces .  As with a bulls-eye target , the surrounding bands had an outward-facing side , and an inward-facing side . The center , however , had only the outward-facing side .  These correlate to the Strong , Weak , E.M. , and Gravity forces , with gravity as the center .  Accordingly , it has only attraction , whereas the others have both attractive and repulsive sides . The gravity force is the closest to the original , base force .  It relates the most to the original state of the universe .  As many quantum effects have shown us , it's STILL all connected !

P.M.

[Bored chemist]

To be as clear as possible

If that's as clear as it gets: quit.

[Kryptid]

The gravity attraction between 2 protons doesn't have to overcome their electrical repulsion, because diproton is extremely unstable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_helium#Helium-2_(diproton)

Then I can use helium-3 as the example instead, which is stable. There is still an enormous repulsive force acting between the two protons in a helium-3 nucleus.

Proton also has non-zero electric polarizability, which can reduce repulsion at close distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton

At the scale of protons and neutrons, the electromagnetic force is 36 orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force (that's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger). You think some polarizability is going to overcome such a colossal level of repulsion?

[hamdani yusuf]

Then I can use helium-3 as the example instead, which is stable. There is still an enormous repulsive force acting between the two protons in a helium-3 nucleus.

How can strong force overcome electrostatic repulsion in Helium-3, but fails to do so in Helium-2?

If Helium-3 is modeled as 3 protons in equilateral triangle configuration with an electron in the middle (instead of 2 protons and 1 neutron that we usually see), we can calculate that attractive force to each proton by central electron can overcome repulsive forces by the other protons.

[Kryptid]

How can strong force overcome electrostatic repulsion in Helium-3, but fails to do so in Helium-2?

The strong force does overcome the repulsion between the two protons in helium-2. The reason that it is unstable is because a deuterium nucleus is more stable than it is, so it decays into deuterium.

If Helium-3 is modeled as 3 protons in equilateral triangle configuration with an electron in the middle (instead of 2 protons and 1 neutron that we usually see), we can calculate that attractive force to each proton by central electron can overcome repulsive forces by the other protons.

Care to show those calculations?

That model doesn't work anyway, since we know that neutrons exist.and they aren't simply a proton plus an electron.

[AlanM]

Here's a little question for you all:  What if Stephen Hawking's decision to pay the man who bet him he (Stephen) was wrong to say the Higgs boson(s) were superfluous ?
Today I tend to aver that Stephen won that bet when he floated that idea.  Often repeated is the idea that mathematics is too precise to mean anything to the masses (I mean folks like me who, like Michael Faraday, stand in awe of Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman and a world of other chaps whose gedanken-experiments (mostly last century) were and are done with esoteric symbols, and fearsomely elegant theorems.  Einstein, Hoyle, and Feynman have said it all very simply, long ago. Neither they nor Stephen have managed to stitch the whole picture together in a way that simple engineers could assimilate. I will be going back to my very first conjecture to put a couple more conjectures down that may reinforce my contentions about where exactly all the dark stuff is very much entangled with the whole universe, gravity is not as different from the strong force, and quanta are not as particular as previously imagined.  I intend expanding the way I have been  disambiguating quarks, quarkinos, photons, photinos, neutrinos, gravitons and gravitinos.  More later (see said topics).

[jeffreyH]

Anytime someone postulates a new idea they have to make sure that it does not violate any conservation laws. If the proposer cannot show this then they do not have enough knowledge to be stating such propositions. Go away and read Noether and then you may have a better chance.

[mad aetherist]

Anytime someone postulates a new idea they have to make sure that it does not violate any conservation laws. If the proposer cannot show this then they do not have enough knowledge to be stating such propositions. Go away and read Noether and then you may have a better chance.

If the mess that modern science is in is due to conservation laws then praps its time to look more closely at thems laws or at least how they are used. I daresay  that all conservation laws rely on action force = reaction force. How can a new theory violate that?  In any case there must be an infinite number of possible theories that dont violate conservation, & only one can be correct.
And mathland should be updated to deal with the real world. All of our lengths & shapes & angles & tickings, real & apparent, depend on the Lorentz gamma, yet mathland mostly ignores that. It gets worse, when gamma is recognised it is the Einsteinian gamma, not the Lorentz gamma, i doubt that Noether can fix that.
I am afraid that as is usual the situation is the reverse of the standard canon, the real situation is that Noether is never applicable to any theory (except praps in rare circumstances when the Einsteinian agrees with the Lorentzian).  Or putting it another way, Noether is ok, but Einsteinians dont know how to use Noether properly, ie it rarely works in Einsteinland.
Anyhow i am suspicious of that name noether.  Would sound better if say etherforever.

[hamdani yusuf]

The strong force does overcome the repulsion between the two protons in helium-2. The reason that it is unstable is because a deuterium nucleus is more stable than it is, so it decays into deuterium.

How much is the strong force?
why not decay to hydrogen-1?