force of gravity fictional; Unification of Forces

It is good to be back in physics after about 6 months hiatus. But
something was troubling in the past month for which I could not
remember. This is a problem of a generalist in that so many irons in
the fire that when I come around to an older subject I forgotten where
I left off.

I remember believing that the Unification of the 4 forces of physics
was like this:

Coulomb Unification since the Coulomb force is the only perfect force
and its carrier particle the photon is perfect with zero rest mass. And
in the Atom Totality the Coulomb force is between the Electrons and
nucleus.

Then the space of the electrons only is governed by gravity and
antigravity.

Then the space governed by the Nucleus has the two forces of
StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear which when combined is a Nuclear Coulomb.

So we have the Coulomb governing the space of nucleus to electrons. We
have the gravity and antigravity governing the space of Electrons only.
And finally we have the StrongNuclear combined with WeakNuclear for a
Nuclear Coulomb.

That was my belief for several years. But then something changed my
mind and I dismissed the gravity and antigravity saying that gravity
was a fictional force and a apsect or result of the Coulomb force. But
I have forgotten what those reasons were.

Do we need a gravity to antigravity for Electron space, or does the
Coulomb force itself provide for this region of the atom-- the space
region of electrons.

I suspect I dropped gravity and antigravity when I dug deeper into the
equation of Coulomb and gravity were mathematically identical in form
only that one was 10^40 stronger.

And if we need a gravity and antigravity would demand carrier particles
for both and yet there has never been any evidence of a graviton
existing.

Anyway, I have to review my old posts some years back as to why I
dropped gravity and antigravity.

If we understand the geometry of atoms of their s, p, d, f orbitals
would explain why gravity and antigravity would be a result of the
Coulomb force as those orbitals have motion away from the nucleus
compared to motion towards the nucleus on the surface of electron
orbitals. So that the shape and motion of a orbital produces and effect
which is gravity or antigravity and thus really being Coulomb only
10^40 weaker.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

--- begin quoting an old 2003 post of mine ---
Unification of Forces of Physics; comparing AP's to
that of Standard-Model & Quark
Date:
Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:45:27 -0500
From:
Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
The nice thing about AP's Coulomb unification of all the forces of
physics is that it is precise, clearcut.

Coulomb Force
/ \
/ \
/ \

Strongnuclear + Weaknuclear = nuclearCoulomb
/ \
/ \
/ \
gravity + antigravity = electron space coulomb

You see, what is so deaf dumb and silly about the Standard Model and
Quark theory is that they are not any kind of Unification. Because
Unification means
"oneness". All the forces become one force. In my Coulomb unification
all forces are just _facets_ of a Coulomb force.

Only the photon is a perfect particle and thus only the EM Coulomb force
is whole and one. The coulomb force of EM deals with the space and
region of electrons to protons and between electrons to other electrons
and protons to other protons. In the nuclear region of an atom the two
forces of Strongnuclear and Weaknuclear combine to create a
NuclearCoulomb force where neutrons are electrons inside protons and
then spill out and run around the nucleus holding together all the
protons.

Finally every atom has an electron-space region and thus another two
forces of gravity and antigravity exist. Modern astronomers are just
beginning to see this force of antigravity.

The message I want to convey in this post is one of quality or lack of
quality in theoretical physics where the silly theories of Standard
Model coupled with Quark theory pretend to link Electroweak with EM
coulomb. In my Unification
EM stands alone and the Electroweak combines with StrongNuclear.

So, in my Unification all the forces of physics are either the solo
Coulomb force or combinations of other forces to restore the Coulomb to
that specific region of the atom.

I say the Standard Model and Quark theories are silly and stupid because
what are we expected to believe as the endresult Unification? Are all
the forces of physics some WeakNuclear end result? Or something hybrid
between Weaknuclear and EM as the endresult.

In the AP Unification the endresult is clear---- everything is a Coulomb
and if not a coulomb then its symmetry was broken or shattered and a
complimentary force exists that when added together restore the Coulomb
for that region.

Everything ever written about the Standard Model and Quark theory places
the reader in a sort of Magical Wonderland of an endresult. Never a
"oneness" but a sort of fudged and mixed up cocktail of forces.

This entire enterprise of thought of Unifying the forces of physics
never had a good start or good run. Instead it was a enterprise of silly
and stupid logic.

The start of the Unification program would ask the first question: (1)
if the forces of physics were unified then what would be the endresult
force which all the other forces of physics would therefore become? Are
all the forces to be a WeakNuclear or a hybrid-WeakNuclear/EM as the
StandardModel/Quark imply. According to my Unification, all the forces
end up being a Coulomb force.

And until the day that physicists start at square one asking the logical
question, that this branch of physics will remain as a foggy quagmire
that will never amount to anything but a waste of time.
--- end quoting an old 2003 post of mine ---

I am still searching as to why I ended the above conversation in 2003
with the idea that gravity and antigravity are fictional forces and
that the above diagram should have only this:


Coulomb Force
/ \
/ \
/ \

Strongnuclear + Weaknuclear = nuclearCoulomb

My memory is not crisp and sharp as to why I dropped gravity and
antigravity. Was it because Nature never provided a carrier particle of
the graviton and coupled with the fact that gravity has the identical
mathematical form as Coulomb when we replace charge with mass.
Reviewing some of my 2001-2003 posts I tried to argue that the
Unification of Forces of Physics would end up at as particle and wave
duality, of only two things-- particle versus wave.

So does the above diagram accurately picture the Unification or should
the diagram look like this when done and finished:


Coulomb Force + gravity ; (protons to electrons
region)
/ \
/ \
/ \

Strongnuclear + Weaknuclear = nuclearCoulomb ; (nuclear region)

Could it be that the Maxwell Equations are incomplete and need a tiny
term for
gravity in the Gauss laws. Where the photon is the carrier particle of
the Coulomb force and the photon also carries the force that we know of
as gravity.

I vaguely remember that I discarded gravity and antigravity as
fictional forces because the carrier particle for gravity would
contradict electron to electron interactions. And that the Coulomb
force is the only force between protons to electrons and vis a vis
electrons to other electrons. So I could not have a Coulomb Unification
if gravity and the graviton existed independent of Coulomb and the
photon.

So to remove the contradiction, gravity becomes an aspect of Coulomb
force as the weakest form of Coulomb with the photon as the carrier
particle. So that gravity as an independent force in nature is a
fictional force.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Gravity is generally not considered on atomic scales, partly because
quantum mechanics and gravity do not mesh particularly well at that
level, and partly because in most cases, the gravitational attraction
between the particles is insignificant compared to the effect of the
Coulomb force.

That does not mean that gravity can be ignored on larger scales. Since
atoms are generally neutrally charged, the effects of the Coulomb force
between large objects are usually insignificant compared to the
gravitational force.

A.

ABarlow wrote:
Gravity is generally not considered on atomic scales, partly because
quantum mechanics and gravity do not mesh particularly well at that
level, and partly because in most cases, the gravitational attraction
between the particles is insignificant compared to the effect of the
Coulomb force.

That does not mean that gravity can be ignored on larger scales. Since
atoms are generally neutrally charged, the effects of the Coulomb force
between large objects are usually insignificant compared to the
gravitational force.

A.P. writes:
Well you are talking about the texture and secondary issues of gravity
and Coulomb whereas this thread is focused on primary and fundamental
issues. This thread is about what gravity really is and what role it
has to the other 3 forces of nature.

Not that the secondary and tertiary issues of gravity can be of help,
but that they cannot deliver the answers and understanding.

I am beginning to remember where I left off in 2001 and 2003 on this
Unification. I now know why I concluded gravity was a fictional force.

Basically an atom has just two regions, the nuclear region and the
nuclear to electron space region. So there are only 2 Coulomb regions,
the nuclear and the nucleus to electron space. And so there are just 3
forces that need Unification. The nuclear-Coulomb is the StrongNuclear
Force combined with the Weak Nuclear force. And the way this works is
that every neutron has a nuclear-electron inside itself that leaks out
in the nucleus and runs around holding together the protons. The
nucleus to electron-space is the other Coulomb force and it holds
together the protons and electrons of the atom and it has a repulsive
force of electrons to other electrons. Gravity is the weakest form of
the Coulomb force and is the net overall Coulomb of protons to electron
attraction once the large scale is neutral charge, and antigravity is
the weakest form of the overall net electron repulsions of the Atom
Totality.

So we observe a force of gravity only because Earth, Sun, planets and
galaxies are attracted to the nucleus of the Atom Totality and the net
overall effect is gravity. And the recent findings of antigravity are
simply the electron to electron repulsion net overall effect.

So in this Coulomb Unification of Forces of physics we end up with
this:

Coulomb Force + gravity
/ \
/ \
/ \

Strongnuclear + Weaknuclear = nuclearCoulomb

Where gravity is a result of Coulomb. Is there an analogy? Yes, we
think of centripetal and centrifugal forces and we think of linear and
angular momentum but they can all be thought of as just momentum. They
are all different versions of just one thing, momentum.

The StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear are actual forces which have a
carrier particles and a region of the atom that requires a Coulomb
force. But gravity and antigravity are not of a distinct region of that
atom and Atom Totality because the regular Coulomb governs the proton
to electron interaction and the electrons to electron interaction. So
gravity and antigravity do not have their own region and thus no
carrier particle and thus not really forces, but fictional forces, and
merely an aspect of the Coulomb force.

Gravity does not exist. It is a aspect or a result of the Coulomb force
inside an Atom Totality. When we see an apple falling from a tree it is
because of the net overall Coulomb forces of the protons of that Atom
Totality and the electrons of the Atom Totality, the net balance of all
the photons of attractions and repulsions leaves a net such that the
apple falls. Gravity is the net effect of Coulomb force. Gravity is not
a force itself but a resultant of all the Coulombic interactions within
an Atom Totality.

Because it is a net effect, we can and will see galaxies that appear to
have antigravity, because the net overall Coulomb on those galaxies is
the electron to electron repulsion and those galaxies move away from
one another.

Another way of saying it is that gravity is the smallest example of the
force of Coulomb.

It is not that Earth is pulled by the Sun because of gravity, it is
because all of the Coulomb forces in this region of the cosmic skies
has a net balance of Coulomb attraction that the Earth is attracted to
the Sun. I say this with confidence because only in this way can you
have the same identical mathematical form for gravity as you have for
the Coulomb when we substitute mass for charge. If their equations had
just the smallest tiniest difference instead of being exactly alike in
form, then gravity would not be a fictional force but a independent and
real force as the StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear and Coulomb.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

wrote:
It is good to be back in physics after about 6 months hiatus. But
something was troubling in the past month for which I could not
remember. This is a problem of a generalist in that so many irons in
the fire that when I come around to an older subject I forgotten where
I left off.

I remember believing that the Unification of the 4 forces of physics
was like this:

Coulomb Unification since the Coulomb force is the only perfect force
and its carrier particle the photon is perfect with zero rest mass. And
in the Atom Totality the Coulomb force is between the Electrons and
nucleus.

Then the space of the electrons only is governed by gravity and
antigravity.

Since it's known that the space of electrons is governed
Robots and Lasers, that's obviously why idiots
like phycists are the closest thing to extinct, next
their iidiot guru Darwin, Zeno, and his Plitdown People People
from France.

Since atoms are also known to be the closeest
thing to extinct, next to quarks.



Then the space governed by the Nucleus has the two forces of
StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear which when combined is a Nuclear Coulomb.

So we have the Coulomb governing the space of nucleus to electrons. We
have the gravity and antigravity governing the space of Electrons only.
And finally we have the StrongNuclear combined with WeakNuclear for a
Nuclear Coulomb.

That was my belief for several years. But then something changed my
mind and I dismissed the gravity and antigravity saying that gravity
was a fictional force and a apsect or result of the Coulomb force. But
I have forgotten what those reasons were.

Do we need a gravity to antigravity for Electron space, or does the
Coulomb force itself provide for this region of the atom-- the space
region of electrons.

I suspect I dropped gravity and antigravity when I dug deeper into the
equation of Coulomb and gravity were mathematically identical in form
only that one was 10^40 stronger.

And if we need a gravity and antigravity would demand carrier particles
for both and yet there has never been any evidence of a graviton
existing.

Anyway, I have to review my old posts some years back as to why I
dropped gravity and antigravity.

If we understand the geometry of atoms of their s, p, d, f orbitals
would explain why gravity and antigravity would be a result of the
Coulomb force as those orbitals have motion away from the nucleus
compared to motion towards the nucleus on the surface of electron
orbitals. So that the shape and motion of a orbital produces and effect
which is gravity or antigravity and thus really being Coulomb only
10^40 weaker.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Coulomb Force + gravity
/ \
/ \
/ \

Strongnuclear + Weaknuclear = nuclearCoulomb

Where gravity is a byproduct, or the end result of the Coulomb or the
total net effect of the Coulomb. We could call it the statistical net
effect of the Coulomb.

It is not like Weaknuclear where it is an independent force or
StrongNuclear which is an independent force and where the two combine
to form a Nuclear-Coulomb.

Coulomb is solo and independent and the lowest Coulomb is the net
overall vector of all the Coulomb forces.

So there really is just one force in physics and it is a Coulomb force
and it depends on the region of the atom where you want to discuss.
Either a atom or the Atom Totality and the nuclear region is the combo
of StrongNuclear plus WeakNuclear. The region of the electron space to
the nucleus is the Coulomb itself.

So there really is just one force in physics but that the Coulomb is
broken symmetry of the nucleus into StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear.

And this is verified by the fact there is the carrier particle of the
photon for Coulomb and the mesons or some call them gluons for the
WeakNuclear and StrongNuclear. However, I would like to say that the
carrier is not gluons for the Weak and StrongNuclear but rather instead
is the electron and proton because it is nuclear electrons inside every
neutron that glues together the protons.

But gravity has no carrier particle. It has been called the graviton
but it has never been found or verified to exist. Thus, I would like
for some people to start thinking and devising a thought-experiment or
actual experiments that proves the graviton cannot exist. This would be
proof that gravity is a fictional force.

I know the excuse for the past 20 or 30 or 50 years has been that the
graviton is so elusive because gravity is so weak, but that is just an
excuse. We have not applied ourselves to a "thought experiment" and a
actual experiment to prove the graviton does not exist and cannot
exist.

I suspect one avenue of a thought-experiment would be to show that no
force of physics, if it truly exists has the identical mathematical
form as a different force of physics. Gravity is identical to Coulomb
once we replace mass with charge. The StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear are
true forces and their formula that describes them cannot be the Coulomb
formula.

Summary: gravity is a fictional force as the net overall effect of the
Coulomb force where most atoms are neutral but a few are not neutral
and the net vector is a tiny Coulomb net result which we happen to call
gravity. And the graviton does not exist and experiments can be devised
to test this claim.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Now a Mr. Weber of Univ. Maryland has been searching for the graviton
for decades, if my memory is correct. But I never hear any news about
any results. This I believe is the case because the graviton does not
exist.

Now there is another avenue of research that indicates very strongly
that the graviton does not exist. It is the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation CMBR. According to a Coulomb Unification of the forces of
physics, gravity is fictional where no graviton exists and the CMBR is
totally uniform with never a nonconformity, or noise in CMBR. It is
totally uniform. And is the temperature of exactly what the
mathematical value of the number e is--- 2.71.....

CMBR is our best proof evidence to date that the graviton does not
exist. And in fact, why build any machine when the Cosmos itself is a
graviton, and the best graviton detector. There is no noise in the CMBR
and it is perfectly smooth to the temperature of 2.71....Kelvin.

There is no graviton because there is no gravity as a force. What
gravity is is the end result of the force of Coulomb over all the atoms
that exist in the Universe. Most atoms are neutral where the positive
charge and negative charge add up to zero, but it is the total net of
charges in the Universe that is not zero and not neutral and thus
gravitational attraction or repulsion exists.

In our neck-of-the-cosmos with the Sun nearby has excessive charge
imbalances and the result of that imbalance is that the planets orbit
the Sun. Keep in mind that all matter we observe in the observable
Universe are pieces of the last 6 electrons of the 5f6 which are
negatively charged matter compared to the rest of the Atom Totality.

Summary: so if the graviton does not exist and further yet, cannot
exist, then gravity is a fictional force. No machine on Earth has ever
detected the graviton and further yet the CMBR is totally smooth with
never any noise; proving the graviton cannot exist.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

, I wrote yesterday:


I suspect one avenue of a thought-experiment would be to show that no
force of physics, if it truly exists has the identical mathematical
form as a different force of physics. Gravity is identical to Coulomb
once we replace mass with charge. The StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear are
true forces and their formula that describes them cannot be the Coulomb
formula.

Now we all know that the force equation for Coulomb and gravity are
identical in math form when we replace mass with charge. Both are
inverse square equations.

So if my Unification thoughts are correct means that the StrongNuclear
multiply by WeakNuclear equations would result in a mathematical formula
of inverse square.

So what do we know of the StrongNuclear equation? We know it has a cube
in it instead of a square. So it is cubed. What do we know of the
WeakNuclear force? We know it does not have a square nor a cube but is
linear following e as the time of decay. This is promising.

Since we have a cubic equation multiplied by a linear equation we can
end up with a inverse square equation.

P.S. I have been trying to unify geometries where Riem + Loba = Eucl.
Maybe that should be Riem X Loba = Eucl. Analogous to StrongNuclear X
WeakNuclear = Nuclear Coulomb. But I have used the symbol "+" to mean
more of "union" rather than the algebra of adding. So that when I said
in the past that StrongNuclear + WeakNuclear = Coulomb, I was using the
term "+" to mean union and multiplication is a form of union. So that is
not a mistake on my part but rather a problem of my wanting to use the
best symbols to convey the overall idea to a lay public that is not well
informed.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

The Coulomb force as an inverse square law is 2nd dimensional.

The StrongNuclear force, as best we have it to date, is a cubic equation
involving volume and is thus 3rd dimensional.

The WeakNuclear force, as best we have it is logarithmic decay rates and
is thus 1st dimensional.

So that mathematically, we take StrongNuclear multiply times WeakNuclear
which is 3rd dimension X 1st dimension and we end up with 2nd dimension
Coulomb.

That is, provided we are careful to enlist and inject all the terms in
StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear.

We keep in mind, especially, what the StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear
forces are. They are the nuclear-electron that is inside a neutron and a
neutron in the nucleus of an atom spills out and runs around the nucleus
holding together all the protons, but sometimes imbalances arise to
cause radioactive decay (and even radioactive growth where a uranium
atom can turn into a plutonium atom).

So the interaction particle or carrier particle for Coulomb is the
photon and for the StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear is the
nuclear-electron. Many in the history of physics have tried to call the
carrier particle of the StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear as mesons or
vector bosons or gluons, whether weak-gluons or colored-gluons, but
those people never had a accurate, and true and clear picture of what is
going on in the nucleus of atoms, and they were playing a silly game of
filling in their algebra-charts. They were not physicists but game players.

Since the force of gravity is identical to Coulomb as inverse square
laws implies that gravity is not a force but a endresultant, a
statistical end result of the interplay of all the Coulomb forces of the
Cosmos. If any force has a similar mathematical form to the Coulomb
means it is a Coulomb force and not a independent and differeent force
such as the StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear are independent and differenct
forces than Coulomb. But they unify into a Coulomb, nuclear Coulomb,
once combined.

The reason the StrongNuclear is a localized force only to the nucleus,
is because it is 3rd dimensional governing only where the
nuclear-electron is governing.

So as we take a volume-metric function of 3rd dimension and multiply by
the 1st dimensional function of log of rate of decay we end up with the
familar Coulomb law of 2nd dimensional inverse square.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

A few days back, I wrote:


Summary: so if the graviton does not exist and further yet, cannot
exist, then gravity is a fictional force. No machine on Earth has ever
detected the graviton and further yet the CMBR is totally smooth with
never any noise; proving the graviton cannot exist.


It is called anisotropy.

--- quoting a websearch ---
Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe - Cosmology
MAP is a MIDEX class mission, selected by NASA in 1996, to probe
conditions in the early universe. MAP measures temperature differences
("anisotropy") in ...
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

--- end quoting ---

Trouble with the anisotropy research is that scientists have reached the
limit of the PRECISION of their own measuring equipment and devices.
There is no anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
CMBR. For CMBR is perfectly smooth to that of 2.71...Kelvin.

The reason so many scientist have gone off a limb on CMBR is that they
want to believe the Big Bang theory is true when in fact it is a fakery.
And much like the scientist, or so called scientists of the Ptolemy eras
and centuries who could not stand to lose the geocentric theory that
Earth was the center of the Universe, so they kept the epicycles. And in
our modern days we have kept Anisotropy much like epicycles. Unwilling
to realize the Big Bang is a fake theory and that CMBR is the inside of
an Atom Totality.

So when we accept CMBR as perfectly smooth, and as the inside of a Atom
Totality, then this CMBR is a measure of temperature, but also is a
measure of whether gravity is a true force or a fictional force. If the
CMBR is perfectly smooth and converges to 2.71 K then that means gravity
is nonexistent. Anisotropy is a measure of gravity and if anisotropy is
nonexistent then gravity is nonexistent.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies