[AlanM]

How about this for a suggestion ? Appologies to Goscinny and Uderzo)

“Gravity is the strong force, and is moderated by magnetism.”

Max Planck in 1900 showed the arbitrariness of scales.  His Planck dimensions show us how to deal with those.
Albert Einstein by 1955 had wrapped up relativity of everything.  Most of can get that.
Fred Hoyle long ago had provided us with the pesky constant of gravitation which is the steady state of the universe.
Richard Feynman was next to put Dirac’s antimatter into context with a few words about antimatter travelling backwards in time.
About a year ago a newbie called Alan M started agitating about magnets, thanks to his grandchild Zahra.

Now consider magnetrix and electrix, today’s names for the basix of everything.  Not particlix or waveletix, but quantumix.
In my garage (a typical black hole, if ever there was one) I have magnets (ball-shaped are the best) making macromodels of the magnetrix doing amazing things.  I defy anyone to pull apart my button-shaped macromagnetix.  The only way to part these amazingly strong ferrite-concentrated stringsix  is by sliding them apart.  I have steel-coated ferrite-concentrated macromagnetix that have been slid apart often when I put on and take off my member name badge for meetings of the Probus Club of Simon’s Town.  The steel coatings are a little rough as a result.  Now it is getting difficult to even slide those little buttonmagentix concentrations sideways past each other, so intensely is the ‘force’ we call friction concentrated by magnetismix.

I should include a few photos of my magnets, but as time is short here in Seaforth today, perhaps you could build your own mental pictures of what I have my macromagnetix doing down below:

A single one is modelling a ‘dimensionless’ dot (ie: the beginning of a dimensionless string).  Two together are modelling a string, and will continue to latch onto as many others as I have macromagnetix to add.  But it gets much more pleasing when one realises that three together will very stably make a triangle (ie: my magnetic stringthingys readily go two-dimensional).  And, YES ! Four together WILL go three-dimensional and make a tetrahedron,  the first Platonic solid !  You have probably guessed by now that those same four very readily go back to a stable two-dimensional square.  They are adherents of Mark Shuttleworth.  Obviously.  (“It’s HIP to be square”)

Next step:  Add another macromagnetix.  Now you have five.  Yes, they will get together in two dimensions, and make a pentagon.  But five together won’t co-operate and go symmetrically into a hexahedron or if you like, a cube.  Add a sixth, and the string readily becomes a hexagon.  Now they like each other enough to do another three-dimensional Platonic solid.  It is a twisted cube.  I don’t know what I should call that, but any way you look at it, you see three balls on the far side, and three balls on the near side.  It must be an octohedron.

Now add a seventh.  What I have now in two dimensions, is a dot in the middle, tightly surrounded by six siblings.  A body-centred hexagon, I suppose describes it neatly.  The three-dimensional solid is not perfect.  It has a wobbly number 7 member.  So Plato has no claim on this one.  There is definitely a ‘mass’ ‘ambiguity’, but if one ignores it as too small to bother with, one could call the whole lump of balls a slightly flattened octohedron.  You now have to add multiple magnetic balls to get to the next Platonic solid.  I don’t have enough to do it properly.

So let’s just leave it there for the (magnetic) moment.  Sorry (like not really) about the ‘pun’.

Back to my question:  What say y’all ?  The Magnetrixs on the Left have it ?  (Or do the Anti-Magnetrixes on the Right have it, actually ?)

In my humble opinion, it is balanced perfectly, like the universe and its anti-universe.

Alan M

[AlanM]

2019 02 27 Naked Science Forum Topic: (Isn’t it time to change the title, and add Ruby to Alan M and Zahra ?)
An Energetic Interpretation (‘Demo’ ?) of an Awful Lot of Science -
And ALL (well, nearly all) of it done in a century NOT too long ago !
© Zahra, Ruby, and Alan M, Hoedspruit, West Sussex, and Seaforth, Simon’s Town.
Here’s today’s suggestion for a complete demo kit (I hope to complete my own, with only one or two models needed as additions to my existing garage (black hole) stock of magnets, copper pipes, coloured lasers, mirrors, lenses, and so-on and so-on).
1.   Photons, electrons, and black ‘holes’: Pith Balls, coloured silver, white, and black (shiny and matt).
2.   Quarks: Ball magnets, variously coloured but especially red, green, blue, silver and black.
3.   Branes: Fridge magnets, about 5cm by 5cm, preferably not too thick, and plain (free of paint or any other attachments or contamination).
4.   Strings: Five or more ball (spherical) magnets (too big to swallow), in polished sintered neodymium iron, bi coloured (one colour for “Up” and the other for “Down” (say, black and white.) Another 5 or more, encased in plastic, and in colours red (for ‘Top’), yellow (for ‘Bottom’), green (for ‘strange’), blue (for ‘charmed’), and, as already mentioned, black (for ‘Up’), and white (for ‘Down’).
5.   Photon momentum: One of those little “perpetuum mobile” machines, ie small vertical-axis horizontally rotating impulse turbine bladed rotors (protected in a transparent dome from air wind but exposed to solar radiation wind), each paddle silver (totally reflective) on its front (sunward) side and matt black (totally light absorbent) on its dark side.
6.   Electron fields: A couple of blown-up balloons coloured blue (for “negatively charged”) and preferably made of really tough plastic so their “fabric of the cosmos” isn’t easily ripped or popped.  And if the balloons aren’t perfectly spherical, they are just as they should be.  Only a really isolated electron’s field can be a perfect sphere.  And only a really isolated universe can be a perfect (well, almost perfect) sphere.
7.   Black ‘holes’ (they aren’t really black at all, and neither are they holes. Nor are they holograms, for that matter (excuse the pun):  For final recognition of the Flat Earth Society, please admit that the portals into “Black holes” ARE two dimensional.  (Well, again, ALMOST two dimensional.)  The edges of ANY point like, flat or spherical energy quantum, from gravitinos, magnetrinos, and electrinos to really large structures like solar systems, galaxies, and a(ny) universe(s) are inevitably uncertain, as explained by Max Planck in 1900 or so.
8.   Twinned “Matter verse” / “Anti matter verse” pairs:  Soap bubble kits or intersecting spherical glass or plastic bubbles.  They nicely show the two-dimensional (if flat) or three dimensional (if a lens) portals between “Black holes”.
9.   Photon generators: Cheap laser and led devices.  These are great for demonstrating photon and gamma ray phenomena like X-rays, visible  and invisible light skin penetration, infra red and ultra violet heat transfer rates, standing waves and other energy storage myths.
10.   And for the rest: A miscellany of batteries (single use chemical and re chargeable), safe (non short circuitable) conductors and insulators (dielectrics), switches, variable resistors, inductors and capacitors, quite often perfectly sourced from your weekly ‘recyclables’.
So there we will stop (for the moment).

A Big THANKYOU to all @ The Naked Scientists.  Zahra, Ruby and I hope this latest reply to ourselves will assist you all in your endeavours to spread a little SCIENCE where it's needed.  See our next BIG Question, in honour of SIR (seriously Ignored Reasoner) Stephen Hawking.  Your humble Z,A,R (South African and aged Seaforthian Reasoners at the cutting edge of African Space).  Have a Happy Happy Day.

[mad aetherist]

I know that the strong nuclear force is 36 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, but could they be the same fundamental force? My thinking is that gravity on the scale of femtometers could obey the law of 1/r^19 (20 dimensions of space, 17 of which are too small to measure) which obeys the rules of how the strong nuclear force falls of significantly over minute distances. Once r is more than a few femtometers we are out of the realms of the tiny, curled up dimensions and into the three normal dimensions of space and the power of attraction is 36 orders of magnitude smaller.

I am a layman, but I do wish to study physics. Please can you explain to me why this obvious (to me) solution is wrong? I am sure if it were this simple, it would have been proven a long time ago.

Gravity is due to the acceleration of aether inflow into mass where aether is annihilated.
The inflow streamlines converge in 3D towards the center of mass & give a 1/RR relationship for gravitational force.  The inflow is praps equal to the escape velocity (at Earth 11.2 kmps).

Aether also accelerates into mass that is spinning, a centrifugal inertia effect, but here the aether is not annihilated, it is sucked in radially near the equator & then spat out axially near the two poles.  The inflow streamlines converge in 2D towards the axis of spin & probly give a 1/R relationship for this quasi-gravitational attraction force.  The outflow streamlines probly dont converge or diverge & hencely probly result in zero or little attraction or repulsion. At a macro level such spinning affects the aetherwind.  We have ...........

(1) The background wind blowing throo the solar system. This probly has some kind of galactic Milky Way orientation, or more probly some kind of cosmic origin & orientation (see Ranzan's DSSU).
(2) The background wind is affected by aether inflow to the Sun due to the Sun's mass, which at Earth's orbit might be an inflow of 42 kmps (that being the Sun's escape velocity at Earth's orbit).  So the resulting background aetherwind near Earth is 500 kmps south to north throo Earth at 20 deg off Earth's spinaxis RA 4:30.
(3) Aether inflow into Earth due to Earth's mass (this contributes say 11.2 kmps at Earth's surface).
(4) Aether inflow into Earth near Equator due to Earth's spin (a centrifugal inertial effect)(pseudo gravity because no aether is annihilated).
(5) Aether outflow from Earth near the Poles, due to (4).
(6) Aether inflow into Earth on the far side of Earth from the Sun, due to Earth's orbit (centrifugal)(pseudo gravity because no aether is annihilated).
(7) Aether outflow from Earth on the nearside to the Sun, due to (6).

They say that at a micro level spinning can approach the speed of light (c).  They say that electrons spin, & protons & neutrons spin.  And i suppose quarks spin, in which case a proton has a double dose of spin-wind.  We have .........

(8 ) The  spin-wind (inflow at equator & outflow near poles) from the internal self spin of each of the 3 quarks, which gives a 1/R relationship to the resulting attraction force near the equator of each quark (centrifugal)(pseudo gravity).
(9) The spin-wind from the external spinning of the quarks around the proton's spin-axis, which gives a 1/R relationship to the resulting attraction force near the equator of each proton (centrifugal)(pseudo gravity).
(10) The inflow into each of the three quarks due to their mass (a 1/RR attraction). 

Anyhow now that i have explained an aetheric perspective i reckon that we are in a better position to think about the possibility of gravity (10) having a roll to play in the strong force holding protons together.  I have shown that the best candidate for the strong force is (8 ) pseudo gravity, due to a quark's spin, & (9) pseudo gravity, due to a proton's spin.