several ways of proving positron-gravity is superior to mass-gravity;

In the prior post I started to list a partial list of where positron-
gravity
better explains the actual data of gravity:


(a) Positrons would have no minimum mass to form a gravitational
bonded
system, whereas mass-gravity has a minimum that is larger than some
reported asteroids gravitationally bound. If you have a few positrons
in the
center of a asteroid you can quickly have a bound system with other
asteroids.

(b) The oblateness of planets and stars should not exist to the extent
seen
with mass-gravity. The agreement between observed oblateness and
theoretical
oblateness is better with positron-gravity.

(c) Resonance of gravitational bounded systems is easier to explain
with
gravity as Positrons than with gravity as mass.

Now let me add on a fourth one which is the essence of the difference
between positron-gravity and mass-gravity.

(d) In mass gravity systems, over time they should all disappear
into a central clump as they continue to lose energy and thus
become swallowed up inside the central clump. However, in
positron-gravity there is no steady inevitable decay of orbit
since the planet and star have a repelling gravity of its positrons
repelling other positrons. So in the old Newton mass gravity
you do not have that extra term of a gravity-repulsion that you
have with positron-gravity. This repulsion term provides stability
for which we see every day in the Solar System. If Newton's
mass gravity were true then our Solar System would have disappeared
some billions of years after it was borne, simply because
mass-gravity continually loses energy and swallowed by the central
star.

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

On Aug 9, 11:43*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
In the prior post I started to list a partial list of where positron-
gravity
better explains the actual data of gravity:

(a) Positrons would have no minimum mass to form a gravitational
bonded
system, whereas mass-gravity has a minimum that is larger than some
reported asteroids gravitationally bound. If you have a few positrons
in the
center of a asteroid you can quickly have a bound system with other
asteroids.

(b) The oblateness of planets and stars should not exist to the extent
seen
with mass-gravity. The agreement between observed oblateness and
theoretical
oblateness is better with positron-gravity.

(c) Resonance of gravitational bounded systems is easier to explain
with
gravity as Positrons than with gravity as mass.

Now let me add on a fourth one which is the essence of the difference
between positron-gravity and mass-gravity.

(d) In mass gravity systems, over time they should all disappear
into a central clump as they continue to lose energy and thus
become swallowed up inside the central clump. However, in
positron-gravity there is no steady inevitable decay of orbit
since the planet and star have a repelling gravity of its positrons
repelling other positrons. So in the old Newton mass gravity
you do not have that extra term of a gravity-repulsion that you
have with positron-gravity. This repulsion term provides stability
for which we see every day in the Solar System. If Newton's
mass gravity were true then our Solar System would have disappeared
some billions of years after it was borne, simply because
mass-gravity continually loses energy and swallowed by the central
star.

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

Ideally your positrons would attract and hold onto electrons, however
a pair of positrons would only repel one another, just like a pair of
electrons would do.

By rights there should always be considerably more electrons and
positions than protons and neutrons. However that ratio might have to
be nearly 2e3 or greater in order for the positron or electron to take
command or dominate over the force of gravity.

~ BG

On Aug 9, 6:43*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Aug 9, 11:43*am, Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)

Ideally your positrons would attract and hold onto electrons, however
a pair of positrons would only repel one another, just like a pair of
electrons would do.

By rights there should always be considerably more electrons and
positions than protons and neutrons. *However that ratio might have to
be nearly 2e3 or greater in order for the positron or electron to take
command or dominate over the force of gravity.

*~ BG

Well this is not a really easy picture. First off, we realize that
ordinary matter comes
in both proton and electron. And where we never see antimatter unless
we probe
the vaccuum of Space.

So we have to distinguish between Positron-Space and a positron
obtained in a
laboratory.

So that when I speak of a cherry sized sphere at the center of the Sun
of positrons
that causes all the Sun's gravity as a Coulomb force, I do not mean a
dense sphere
of pure positrons. I mean a dense sphere of Positron-Space.

Quantum Physics is about particles and there really is no study of
Space as Quantum
Mechanical. So in QM, talking about an atom you talk about protons,
electrons,
neutrons, neutrinos, photons and other particles, but QM is rather
lacking in
discussion of the Space wherein these particles reside or interact.
Space is sort
of the unassuming hidden assumption.

But here I am trying to put Space on par with the other particles of
Quantum Mechanics.
So what I am saying is that a hydrogen atom is composed of several
particles, 1 proton,
and 1 electron, and many photons. But a hydrogen atom also has Space
wherein that
proton and electron reside and that Space is part of the QM of a
hydrogen atom. And
I am going to call that space a Positron-Space. So the hydrogen atom
is composed
of 1 proton, 1 electron, many photons and the Positron-Space that
houses the
electron.

Now Positron-Space can be tinkered with to produce actual positrons
such as
the experiment of coaxing positrons from the vaccuum of space.

In Newton Mechanics and Classical Physics, Space is thought of as
empty and
ready to be filled by ordinary matter. This is a poor assumption of
classical physics,
even today in Quantum Mechanics we have Space as a hidden assumption.

So since all of Quantum Mechanics that we speak of, involves particles
that interact
in a Space but we never detailed what Space actually is in QM.

So here I am beginning to detail Space in QM as a particle itself and
the best evidence
of what particle that Space is, is the positron since whenever we
apply energy to the
vaccuum of Space out comes positrons.

So do not think when I say that a cherry sized sphere for the Sun and
a red blood cell
or micron sized sphere for the Earth as positrons are actually tiny
spheres of positrons.
What they are is that the entire Sun is a Positron-Space sphere
matching the regular
matter or ordinary matter of the Sun and that the positrons of the
Positron-Space are
most dense at the center of the Sun.

So I do not want to give the impression that if someone could visit
the center of the Sun
or center of Earth that they would see a cherry sized sphere of
positrons or a micron
sized sphere of positrons in the Earth and that these tiny spheres
give us the
gravity. The picture I do want to present is that ordinary matter
occupies space and the
Space of the Sun has caused a dense Positron-Space around the Sun. And
this
Positron-Space is the force of gravity itself where the positrons of
Positron-Space attracts
the ordinary matter in its vicinity. So gravity becomes an ordinary
Coulomb 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

Minutes ago I wrote the following:

Well this is not a really easy picture. First off, we realize that
ordinary matter comes
in both proton and electron. And where we never see antimatter unless
we probe
the vaccuum of Space.

So we have to distinguish between Positron-Space and a positron
obtained in a
laboratory.

So that when I speak of a cherry sized sphere at the center of the Sun
of positrons
that causes all the Sun's gravity as a Coulomb force, I do not mean a
dense sphere
of pure positrons. I mean a dense sphere of Positron-Space.

Quantum Physics is about particles and there really is no study of
Space as Quantum
Mechanical. So in QM, talking about an atom you talk about protons,
electrons,
neutrons, neutrinos, photons and other particles, but QM is rather
lacking in
discussion of the Space wherein these particles reside or interact.
Space is sort
of the unassuming hidden assumption.

But here I am trying to put Space on par with the other particles of
Quantum Mechanics.
So what I am saying is that a hydrogen atom is composed of several
particles, 1 proton,
and 1 electron, and many photons. But a hydrogen atom also has Space
wherein that
proton and electron reside and that Space is part of the QM of a
hydrogen atom. And
I am going to call that space a Positron-Space. So the hydrogen atom
is composed
of 1 proton, 1 electron, many photons and the Positron-Space that
houses the
electron.

Now Positron-Space can be tinkered with to produce actual positrons
such as
the experiment of coaxing positrons from the vaccuum of space.

In Newton Mechanics and Classical Physics, Space is thought of as
empty and
ready to be filled by ordinary matter. This is a poor assumption of
classical physics,
even today in Quantum Mechanics we have Space as a hidden assumption.

So since all of Quantum Mechanics that we speak of, involves particles
that interact
in a Space but we never detailed what Space actually is in QM.

So here I am beginning to detail Space in QM as a particle itself and
the best evidence
of what particle that Space is, is the positron since whenever we
apply energy to the
vaccuum of Space out comes positrons.

So do not think when I say that a cherry sized sphere for the Sun and
a red blood cell
or micron sized sphere for the Earth as positrons are actually tiny
spheres of positrons.
What they are is that the entire Sun is a Positron-Space sphere
matching the regular
matter or ordinary matter of the Sun and that the positrons of the
Positron-Space are
most dense at the center of the Sun.

So I do not want to give the impression that if someone could visit
the center of the Sun
or center of Earth that they would see a cherry sized sphere of
positrons or a micron
sized sphere of positrons in the Earth and that these tiny spheres
give us the
gravity. The picture I do want to present is that ordinary matter
occupies space and the
Space of the Sun has caused a dense Positron-Space around the Sun. And
this
Positron-Space is the force of gravity itself where the positrons of
Positron-Space attracts
the ordinary matter in its vicinity. So gravity becomes an ordinary
Coulomb force.


I suspect the function of the neutrino, the antineutrino especially
for laboratory
studies of atoms is the same role that Positron-Space is for gravity
of the
Atom Totality. So that AntiNeutrino-Space is the space of a laboratory
hydrogen
atom and houses the electron of that hydrogen atom.

Physics never really had a teaching or learning session as to the
roles or functions
of particles. Well the role of a neutrino is this Space. The
antineutrino exists wherever there is a laboratory electron and gives
that electron a Space for it to occupy. So that when a atom in the lab
is stable and doing nothing exciting, its
electron is housed in a Space provided by the antineutrino. But when
this atom
is energized and broken apart in fission then the antineutrino which
had been
the Space to house the electron, has collected itself into a full
particle and comes
radiating out of that atom as a particle.

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