[DualElementUniverse (OP)]

That's determined by electromagnetism, not gravity. For example, the radius of a deuterium atom is very similar to that of protium, despite deuterium having approximately twice the mass and therefore twice the gravity.

Say the mainstream phisycs.
If you would read my work, you can get the answer for it as well. By DEU the gravity is not closely related to rest mass and depend on the rate of protons and electrons. At the Hydrogen the gravity force come from the proton maximum 5-10% of the whole atom.
The gravity and electromagnetism are same effect at the different distance of the elements.
The phenomenon of gravity, electromagnetism, core force and magnetism come from the velocity difference at the one of basic elements collid with the atom from different direction. (by DEU is called particle G)


Please, please, please if you don't want read my work, don't do it, but just citating the statement of mainstream phisycs will not move us forward.
I know, if we stand my theory against the mainstream phisycs, the two will be in contradiction.  This is the point!

[Kryptid]

Like Bored Chemists say, it isn't heckling to point out where you are wrong.

The state, where the numbers of the stuck particle G in the Bubble is less than in the other stable state, are known as an electron and the other stable state is known as the proton. No other stable particles exist.

This statement, for example, is incorrect. Photons and neutrinos are also stable. Then you have the antimatter counterparts of the electron and proton, the positron and antiproton. To all current measurements, those particles are stable as well.

The number of electrons is over 20 already in the case of Hydrogen

Hydrogen only has one electron per atom.

The different velocities of the G particles colliding from different directions to the electron and proton cause gravity

How does that explain gravity produced by things that aren't electrons or protons? Gravitational lensing shows that light itself has a gravitational field.

I found logicaly mistake in relativity theory

Care to expand on that?

The weak interaction does not exist

It's been measured and the particles that transmit it (Z bosons and W bosons) have been detected. We know it exists.

I saw an experiment, maked by a hungarian person in Brem, that show clearly that, the different type of elements fall down in the vacuum with different speed.

Do you have a link to this? Were the results duplicated by other experimenters?

I declare in the theory, that the gravity is not universal, depend on the mass, elements type, temperature, velocity and acceleration of elements and more other parameters.

By DEU the gravity is not closely related to rest mass and depend on the rate of protons and electrons.

Existing experiments have shown that gravity is correlated to mass. The experiments get approximately the same value for gravitational attraction based on mass. Different materials have been tested (lead, stainless steel, mercury, tungsten and copper) and they have no obvious effect on the results: https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/7/12/1803/5874900

Say the mainstream phisycs.

No, actual measurements say that. We can measure the radii of atoms. It's not a theory, it's experimental evidence.

Please, please, please if you don't want read my work

I have been reading it (what you've posted here, that is).

but just citating the statement of mainstream phisycs will not move us forward.

I'm citing experimental evidence.

I know, if we stand my theory against the mainstream phisycs, the two will be in contradiction.  This is the point!

Experiments currently support mainstream physics over your model.

[Bored chemist]

Say the mainstream phisycs.

The evidence says it.
Do you realise that science is based on experimental observatin?

[Bored chemist]

I know, if we stand my theory against the mainstream phisycs, the two will be in contradiction.  This is the point!

Only one of them can be right; and it's the one with experimental support- which means your idea is 90 pages of waste-paper.

[Bored chemist]

I like thinking. In fact, I cant do not thinking about very komplex stuffs.

Perhaps you should try thinking about simple stuff like the importance of evidence.

[DualElementUniverse (OP)]

This statement, for example, is incorrect. Photons and neutrinos are also stable. Then you have the antimatter counterparts of the electron and proton, the positron and antiproton. To all current measurements, those particles are stable as well.

This is just a conclusion based on the phisycs theory. Nobody saw positron or antiproton. To be this exist just a nessery inferenc because without it the phisycs by the mainstream rules could not works. IN the DEU I explain the other non stable particles.

    The weak interaction does not exist
It's been measured and the particles that transmit it (Z bosons and W bosons) have been detected. We know it exists.

By DEU the weak interaction the emissio of the extra number of particle G related to the equilibrium state. So you can messure it, but not an idividual interaction and don't come by bosons.

Existing experiments have shown that gravity is correlated to mass.

Ok, you catch me. The mass that I mean the value of the material (particle G) So I correct it: The gravity is not closly related to the value of material. (in DEU its the mass)
Of course, because we determine the rest mass by the gravity.

Care to expand on that?

This is not a new theory and I have chance it can appers on a trusted site as news. So I will not.

Experiments currently support mainstream physics over your model.

You don't know it, because you don't know my theory. You know an essence of it, what can't explain the detailes.
Otherwise, the experiments just coincides to the conclusion of mainstream, but absolutely not proof the rules. If you have a black box, and set up a rules by the outpot and the rule are proofed many times, you didn't proof the rules are true, just the rules can give a good predict. I never told, my theory give different result related the messured fact as the mainstream, in the arrow metric and energy range, where we can verify it. Why important it? Because if we step out from this metric and energy range, the rules can become invalid. One of the biggest probleme of the phicisycs, cant make unified rules for the phenomenon. So the phisycs see the universum as two (or mor) black box and for every black box make a new rule.
But my theory makes one rule for every rang. I don't know, my theory the verity, but can explain every phenomenon and can give answers for every non answered question in the phisycs. So I have just one black box, and the rule for it working in every case. And maybe give same result for the questions in the x range as the mainstream or not.

I understand you. You try compare my theory (what you don't know) to the statement of mainstream. If we would see the facts (eg. the result of experiments and phenomenon) ther are not contradiction to my theory. Just the explanation by mainstream dos it.
So you can see, it is pointles compare the DEU to mainstream.There is a meaningful thing if we see my theory and we can ascertain it workable or not. And every citated fact by you are in my theory, and there are explained as well.

[DualElementUniverse (OP)]

https://atomsz.com/ [nofollow]

additional, DEU can explain why dosn't give the experiment the predicted result. eg. the position of  objects don't reached the expected position

[Kryptid]

Nobody saw positron or antiproton.

Yes, we have. Not with our eyes, but with particle detectors.

So you can messure it, but not an idividual interaction and don't come by bosons.

We have detected those bosons.

You don't know it, because you don't know my theory.

Then I'll amend that statement: the current evidence supports mainstream physics over what you have posted so far on this forum. I can, indeed, say that.

You try compare my theory (what you don't know) to the statement of mainstream.

I'm comparing your "theory" (which it isn't really, because you haven't tested it) to the existing evidence. It falls short. Claiming that particles which we have actually detected, measured the mass, charge and other properties of and even sent messages using (yes, we have sent information using neutrinos) don't exist is to be a denialist of the evidence.

[Bored chemist]

Nobody saw positron or antiproton.

Nobody has seen you or your 90 page work of fiction.
But people use positrons every day. We know they are real.

You don't know it, because you don't know my theory.

You have told us that your idea disagrees with physics.
Physics agrees with evidence.
So we know your idea does not agree with evidence.
So there is no point in your idea.

So you can see, it is pointles compare the DEU to mainstream.

Yes, but not for the reason you want to believe.

[DualElementUniverse (OP)]

We do shedow boxing.
You can't or don't want recognize the different between phenomenon and the explanation of phenomenon by a theory. The phenomenon are the transfer of energy portion, change of the energy level at an element or in the space and the motion of an element. The explanation of phenomenon by mainstream are bosons, alpha radiaton or electromagnetism. The DEU dosn't say the phenomenons don't exist. It just give a different explanation of phenomenons related to mainstream. The result of the two theory can be same and can be different. The different between they is how explain the phenomenons.

In the mainstream phisycs there are around 20 elements, around 6-8 different effects and a lot of rules how the elements can interacting to each other. The fetures of some elements must are exactly same, exactly opposot or in a determined rate to some other elements. Eg, by the mainstream phisycs if the rate of force of electromagnetism and gravitation would changes by 1% (I readed about 0,1% as well) the universum would collapse.
The DEU operates with two elements (actually one, as I early mentioned), the elements have 5 fetures: size, mass, velocity, flexibility and oscillating. The fetures can are in a very big rate range to each others.
If we see the possibility of the two theory by the mathematics, it not a question what is more possible. (Occam's razor) Regardless of probability both can be true or fals, could give same or different results for the questions. It is not importan decide it at all. By the theme of this topic, there is one question: the logic of the Dual Element Universe is workable or not. And we can't give the answer by compare the explanation of the two theory or analyze that the mainstream can give a workable answers for all of the questions. (Otherwise the mainstrean can't give, the DEU can.)

So, if I could ask it, please lets speek about logic of the DEU, as the basic theme of the topic is this. I would be happy to explain the theory part by part if somebody don't want read a lot, but interesting about the logic of DEU.

[Bored chemist]

The DEU dosn't say the phenomenons don't exist.

Yes it does.

. No other stable particles exist.

[evan_au]

Nobody saw positron.

I once had scan which used the gamma rays produced by positrons to form an image of my heart.
The gamma rays lit up the image, showing where the positrons were.

[DualElementUniverse (OP)]

I once had scan which used the gamma rays produced by positrons to form an image of my heart.
The gamma rays lit up the image, showing where the positrons were.

This is by DEU:
The nucleus able create elements like electron. When the structure or energy level of enviroments of the atom is changes, there are so energy level, when thise particles able leave the atom.Thise particles similar to electrons, but its particle G number in its inner structura is not in equilibrium state. When bigger value of particle G collid with this particle, it can become in excited state, and the oll of its particle G are emitted with a big particle densinity and big velocity. Thise particles G can make an energy transfer, what we can detect.
The created particle cease to exist.

So, by DEU the phenomenon exist, just not by an individual particles of positron, and not by an individual energy rays (gamma).

The mainstream explains the disappering elements whit the anty elements of it. The DEU explains the disappering elements with the structure and the change of structure of the elements.

[DualElementUniverse (OP)]

Every elements created when the particles G and the Bubbles summa energy level decrease. Then the particles G stuck into Bubble. The stable elements the elektron and the proton. The enviroment of two elements can changes that way, that the particle G quantity in the element changes. Thise state is instable, but can detect as a different sized element for a short time.
When the particle G number change in the element, the energy level of element changes. When the particles G accumlated in the elements or emited out from element, the particle G changes the oscillating of Bubble field. The oscillating of Bubble field is the temperature, and the oscillating of the Bubble field which spreads in the space is the electromagnetic wave.

The set of particle G moves in the space can pretend it is an element. It is detected. When the particle G density in the space decrease, it seem as the element dissapers. It cause an energy level change as well.

[Origin]

This is not a new theory and I have chance it can appers on a trusted site as news. So I will not

So you won't support your statement, "I found logicaly mistake in relativity theory".
That's not surprising I suppose, since almost all your ideas are falsified by experimentation and observation.  You apparently don't like to look to closely at any current scientific information.

[Origin]

Every elements created when the particles G and the Bubbles summa energy level decrease. Then the particles G stuck into Bubble. The stable elements the elektron and the proton.

Electrons and protons are not elements, that is the wrong word.

When the particle G number change in the element, the energy level of element changes. When the particles G accumlated in the elements or emited out from element, the particle G changes the oscillating of Bubble field. The oscillating of Bubble field is the temperature, and the oscillating of the Bubble field which spreads in the space is the electromagnetic wave.

You haven't really written 90 pages of this type of word salad, have you?

[Bored chemist]

The nucleus able create elements like electron.

No.
Because that would break the law of conservation of mass.

The DEU dosn't say the phenomenons don't exist.

It says the phenomenon which we call "mass conservation" does not exist.

[Kryptid]

So, by DEU the phenomenon exist, just not by an individual particles of positron

We know that positrons exist because we are able to measure the mass and charge of subatomic particles. The positron has a mass equal to that of the electron but has a positive charge instead of a negative charge.