Physical Axioms and Attractive Forces

Ah Ha,

Gregg, I see one other possible mis-communication going on here. When I talk about property values varying, I'm not talking about them varying in one particle over time. I'm talking about them varying from one individual particle to another individual particle. But for any given individual the value remains essentially fixed for all time.

LB

Of course, if we say that the basic construction units are the electron positron pair, and that these are toroidal. Basically photons as slugs having a length equal to their wavelength and a circumference equal to their wavelength, twisted round into a toroid.

Then we can construct a proton out of electrons and positrons, with one positron over. The neutron having equal numbers. Then protons will be like peas in a pod.

(edited) Thinking a bit more about how something as small as a proton can emit and absorb huge gravitons. Half the energy of mass at rest is given over to the creation of an aether "atmosphere." This has an inverse fourth power fall off. let's ignore any contractions of mass and time. We are still left with with the Fitzgerald length contraction, which means a frequency change in a rotataing system.

This proton aether atmosphere looks like a ball at 30 metres radius but it's still a doughnut shape. That complicates things but the hole is tiny. I'll take a look at just how tiny later.

Anyway, the graviton is emited at the boundary layer of the aether. This is the simplest explanation, otherwise a proton would have to expel something faster than light. Remember we are talking here about light speed gravitons.

Actually the same thing must apply to electrons and thermal photons. A thermal photon is a huge diffuse thing that "covers" thoousands of electons, yet only one electron absorbs it.

Gregg,

A few examples to clarify my clarification.

Atoms are the main particle used to construct stars, and stars are the main particle used to construct galaxies.

The mass of any one atom is (approximately) constant with time[1], but two atoms selected at random can have mass values that differ by two orders of magnitude or more.

The mass of any one star is (approximately) constant with time[1], but any two stars selected at random can have mass values that differ by ten orders of magnitude or more.

The mass of any one proton is (approximately) constant with time. If you are correct about the meaning of the mechanical separation techniques you have mentioned, then the masses of any two randomly selected protons must be very close to each other. Within a few percent, perhaps less.

===

There is no natural principle that forbids such tighlty constrained property values, but it is obvious that property values often do vary by more than a few percent.

FWIW, it sounds to me that you are probably right about protons. And that means that neutrons and electrons also must have mass values that vary by only a few percent. If this is the case, then we can use this information to help define the quantum world of Meta Model. It also means that there are some differences between atoms and sub atomic particles that need to be understood.

So obvioulsy we want to know more.

*************************
Tom,

If a propane molecule minus two hydrogen atoms equals a propylene molecule, and if the separation technique described by Gregg relies only on the mass difference of the two molecules (as it seems to), then the masses of those two hydrogen atoms cannot vary much from one another.

LB

[1] explosion events are one known exception

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />If a propane molecule minus two hydrogen atoms equals a propylene molecule, and if the separation technique described by Gregg relies only on the mass difference of the two molecules (as it seems to), then the masses of those two hydrogen atoms cannot vary much from one another.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How is it possible for the separation technique to rely only on mass and not on the charge-to-mass ratio?

Suppose they were ions. Wouldn't it then be obvious that the sorting was being done by charge, not mass? -|Tom|-

I'm still studying the description of the separation process Gregg supplied, and plan to do some more more digging on the 'Net. It looks like the process works on the non-ionized molecules of propane and propylene. But if that turns out to be incorrect I'll have to do some rethinking.

Distillation in general uses the (sometimes very) small differences in boiling temperature (vapor pressure) of similar-but-not-identical molecules. Ionization is generally not a part of the process, and can sometimes cause problems if it is allowed to occur.

***********************************
Gregg,

On the other hand, vapor pressue is a molecule to molecule phenomenon, and at that scale the charge of individual protons and electrons on neighboring molecules, even if balanced over each entire molecule, becomes part of the picture.

Do you see why we are not yet ready to agree that the mass of the proton MUST be the only factor involved. The mass to charge ratio is not yet ruled out as a significant contributor.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
Your statements about proton mass not varying are, for me, claims without explanations. That may be my fault -- my chemistry background is very weak. But I'd like to understand why protons can't be like grains of sand on the beach -- stastically identical, also identical in all large samples, yet individually able to have significant mass differences such that no two grains are exactly alike. How do we know that protons aren't like that too? What is there about separation experiments that assures this? -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom

I agree with your statement. Humans have a mental need to bring order out of chaos, so it was proclaimed about a century ago that protons have a fixed mass, size, charge, etc. This proclamation does not make it so. This is somewhat like declaring that the concentration of sodium ion in a water sample is zero. We can't measure zero. All we can legitimately claim, for example, is that our analysis, with a precision of 3 parts per billion, did not detect sodium.

I have learned over 35 years as a process design engineer, that Reality will trump my assumptions and theories every time. But, we do have the mechanism used by Professor Lawrence, <b>which in practice</b>, indicates that the mass of protons cannot vary by more than about 1.5%

On further reading of his procedure, it was declared that the paths of the ionized uranium fluoride molecules were changed by collisions "<b>from the side</b>" by alpha particles (helium nuclei) and by beta particles (electrons) within the electromagnetic field created by the montrous magnets and powerful electrical potential. I think this statement at least removes any reference to their paths being changed by the "geometry of the field". Rather we have changes in momentum arising from collisions by particles which possess mass. That seems more sensible and perhaps closer to MetaScience.


Gregg Wilson