How Gravity Works and What causes it.

To understand gravity you have to throw out all the present silly hypotheses relating to the atomic structures that have never been able to explain a single aspect of matter. If ALL matter can be explained using atoms composed of only two types of particles, why do we need all these other mythical particles?

All matter is composed of ‘crystal-like’ structures that are atoms. People think of crystals as rigid and hard but this is not necessarily true. The crystal-like structure of the atoms was briefly considered in the late 1800s, but was rejected because the physicists  argued that it did not allow for all the known elements.  (The possible configurations of crystal ‘Atoms’ using a maximum of 150 electrons is 570, and the crystal-like structure gives explanations of all aspects of matter.)

Another problem lies with the ‘atomic number’. The ‘atomic numbers’ are derived from a ‘decision’ made by the physics establishment that hydrogen, being the lightest ‘known’ element would be given the number 1 to indicate that it had only one electron. This decision was not based on any logic or scientific evidence, it was just decided. It was also decided,  using the same lack of knowledge and evidence, that heavier atoms must have more electrons.

Heat is moving electrons. The element that gives up electrons the easiest is hydrogen. It is therefore reasonable to argue that this shows that the hydrogen nucleus has the least ‘grip/attraction’ on its electrons.

Now consider a magnet. If you pick up ball bearings with the magnet, you will reach a stage when no more bearings will be attracted to it. Its magnetic attraction has become reduced by the number of bearings.

An atom has the same problem with electrons, it can only support a certain number.

Atoms compress under pressure. Under pressure they give out heat (Electrons). The mass increases under pressure. Reduce the pressure and electrons are absorbed and the mass decreases.

Very simplistic? Of course it is, but is still essentially correct. The less electrons that an atom has, the greater the mass.The more electrons, the lighter the mass.

This is obviously the opposite of current physics hypotheses and is therefore more likely to be correct.

Under very high pressures electrons are forced out the the atom structures and cannot return. The attraction/pull of the nucleus remains but the pressure prevents the electrons from reducing the mass of the atoms.

In a planet as the pressure increases, more and more electrons are forced out from the centre to the outside.

As more electrons are lost to atoms, the atoms become denser, (become different, heavier  atoms). There will be a relatively continuous flow of electrons from the core to the outside of the planet.

The nuclei of the core atoms do not have the number of electrons to blanket the nuclei attraction/pull which now combine to create a nuclear force that we call gravity. Gravity is a nuclear force, the combined forces of trillions of atomic nuclei. Unlike a magnetic force, gravity acts on all matter. Note; A magnetic force  is a very weak force caused by displacement of the nuclei of certain atoms.

We have here a concept that most people will find difficult to understand, that is that any individual atom can become hydrogen or lead.

We also have the concept that electrons are essentially anti-mass particles. However, you should really visualise that mass is actually a nuclear force not a lump of lead. Not easy, I grant you.

——————————

The Tractor Beam.

I have always been a science fiction fan. I feel that science fiction (SciFi) can expand your mental horizons far more than any other type of literature. Completely new concepts are brought before you for your consideration. Some SciFi can be really bad, some better and some excellent. Some handle the psychology of situations very well, others ignore it totally.

Many aspects of SciFi I consider to be fantasy but I can allow because it helps the story along. Among my ‘Fantasy’ categories are time travel, alternative universes, black holes, time dilation, constant speed of light, pressor beams/repulsers, tractor beams and gravity waves. (Also, virtually every hypothesis of the physics establishment.)

Unfortunately, whilst I was writing ‘How gravity Works and What Causes it’. I realised that I would have to remove tractor beams from my science fantasy list.

Tractor beams are scientific possibilities.

I have known how gravity works for over 35 years, and I have read virtually every story ever written which includes attractor beams, yet I have only just realised that it is possible to make one.

Difficult, impractical, outside our current technical and scientific capabilities, but certainly possible.

Even with our rapid technical advances it is likely to be at least 500 years before we could produce one.

It would be dangerous and difficult to handle, and it could not be done on Earth.

So, how do we build a tractor beam?

A Find a piece of planetary core material.

B. Insulate it from electrons.

C. Design a shutter mechanism to act as a trigger.

D. Mount it on a space craft.

So, how do we find a piece of planetary core material? There ought to be some hanging about in the asteroid belt, shouldn’t there?

I don’t really think so. The very high gravitational force field would have collected all the asteroids in a very short time. No, I’m afraid that any wandering core material would have collected a lot of planetary debris and either disappeared into space, headed into the Sun or is now a planet or moon. Let us ignore that for now and go on to Item B.

How do we insulate it from electrons? The problem here is that the insulation would have to be light and dense at the same time. 4,000 miles thickness of roof insulation would make our tractor beam a little bulky for welding onto our spaceship.

Let us consider that our core material is a 10 cubic metre sphere, and it had not attracted any debris or electrons. Let us also say that it came from a planet the same size as Earth. Could we assume that it would have a gravitational force of 1g? Certainly not. Earth’s gravitational force is well shielded by the material between the core and the Earth’s surface. The G-force at the core could be 10g, 50g 100g or more, we just don’t know. We are having difficulties insulating the core material to prevent the gravitational force decaying. We would not be able to withstand the possible g-force itself. Neither the crew nor the spaceship  could work within a 100g gravitational force field.

What would the mass be of 10 cubic metres of core material? 100tonnes? 1000 tonnes? 1,000,000 tonnes?

More to come on this later. (My wife said that I could have my dinner or play on my computer. Our dog thinks that I should play on my computer.)

It is now later, and I have decided that attractor/tractor beams are definitely going back on my fantasy list.

——————————————

A Point to Ponder

The present method of deciding if a substance is an element or not is based on a ‘breakdown’ process, i.e. if a substance will breakdown into other substances then it is a molecule.

This is an illogical idea as I will demonstrate.

If we have a 10 link chain, and we stretch it until it breaks, we could end up with a 5 link piece and a 4 link piece. A strange type of logic might prompt you to conclude that the original chain was constructed from a 5 link chain and a 4 link chain.

If we consider a molecule consisting of 2 identical atoms joined by a shared electron, and we pull these apart, it is reasonable to assume the possibility that we will end up with one atom having 1 electron more than the other. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that if we have a substance consisting of identical atoms, and break this down, we will end up with two type of atoms. Conversely, if we produce a substance from quantities of dissimilar atoms, we should not be surprised to get a substance consisting of identical atoms.

———————————————

 Author – Brian Williams.