Let me provide the background first. To unify all the forces of physics
then gravity becomes a Coulomb force in the Atom Totality. But what
would a coulomb-gravity be geometrically? Algebraically the equations
for gravity and coulomb are identical when we replace mass with charge.
So algebraically they are the same. But we need a geometrical
connection.
And the geometrical connection is that gravity is the magnetic monopole
of Space. Space is a Sea or Ocean of Positrons as Dirac proposed in the
1970s. Space is not some empty vacuum of nothing. Space is a sea of
positrons and these attract ordinary matter (since all the matter we
see in the universe are the electrons of the Atom Totality). So this
magnetic attraction of Space to Matter/mass yields what we commonly
call and know of as the force of gravity.
This history of the force of gravity, excluding the Newton and General
Relativity theories leads up to the final theory of gravity as a
Coulomb force.
But this Unified theory of all the forces of physics makes a very
radical prediction, at least I think it does and could be wrong. The
radical prediction is that the nucleus of atoms does not have this Sea
or Ocean of Positrons to constitute a nuclear-space. And since the
nucleus does not have this "space" that electrons have their space,
then the nucleus, obviously, does not have a force of gravity. Because
gravity is a byproduct of Space and the nucleus does not have the same
sort of space that the electrons orbiting the nucleus have.
Now for the EXPERIMENT that the above demands. The above would say that
since the nucleus has no gravity force, then there should be an
equality of fusion to fission from nuclei. In other words, if gravity
does exist for nuclear particles of neutrons and protons then there
exists a slight imbalance between fission and fusion. If the nucleus
does have a force of gravity, then the nuclei of atoms favors fusion
more than it favors fission. That it would require a tiny bit more
energy to fission a nuclei than to fuse a nuclei. A tiny bit more
energy to account for the nuclear gravity. But if gravity does not
exist in the nucleus of atoms, then there does not exist this tiny bit
more energy to fission than to fuse.
Now the EXPERIMENT I suggested involves looking at isotopes and isomers
of chemical elements and to factor in the WeakNuclear Force but to look
for a isotope that seems to favor fusion and disfavor fission. I could
not find such a case but I did note that the elements from hydrogen to
iron favor fusion but the elements from iron beyond favor fission which
agrees with the idea that there does not exist the force of gravity in
the nucleus.
But perhaps a better parameter for the experiment is not the decay
energies of isotopes but rather the rate of decay often in microseconds
or in nanoseconds.
We compute the force of gravity of a neutron to neutron or proton to
proton or proton to neutron etc etc. It is a very tiny force and thus a
very tiny amount of energy. But that amount is equal to a *amount of
time of decay rate*. So, in other words, if the force of gravity exists
in the nucleus of a isotope of iron. then the decay rate should favor
fusion. But if iron isotopes do not favor fusion but have an equality
towards either fission and fusion would be support for this theory that
gravity does not exist in the nucleus of atoms.
— quoting Wikipedia on "isotopes of iron" —
45Fe 26 19 45.01458(24)# 4.9(15) ms [3.8(+20-8) ms] 3/2+# 46Fe 26 20
46.00081(38)# 9(4) ms [12(+4-3) ms] 0+ 47Fe 26 21 46.99289(28)# 21.8(7)
ms 7/2-# 48Fe 26 22 47.98050(8)# 44(7) ms 0+ 49Fe 26 23 48.97361(16)#
70(3) ms (7/2-) 50Fe 26 24 49.96299(6) 155(11) ms 0+ 51Fe 26 25
50.956820(16) 305(5) ms 5/2- 52Fe 26 26 51.948114(7) 8.275(8) h 0+
52mFe 6.81(13) MeV 45.9(6) s (12+)# 53Fe 26 27 52.9453079(19) 8.51(2)
min 7/2- 53mFe 3040.4(3) keV 2.526(24) min 19/2- 54Fe 26 28
53.9396105(7) STABLE [>3.1E+22 a] 0+ 0.05845(35) 0.05837-0.05861 54mFe
6526.9(6) keV 364(7) ns 10+ 55Fe 26 29 54.9382934(7) 2.737(11) a 3/2-
56Fe 26 30 55.9349375(7) STABLE 0+ 0.91754(36) 0.91742-0.91760 57Fe 26
31 56.9353940(7) STABLE 1/2- 0.02119(10) 0.02116-0.02121 58Fe 26 32
57.9332756(8) STABLE 0+ 0.00282(4) 0.00281-0.00282 59Fe 26 33
58.9348755(8) 44.495(9) d 3/2- 60Fe 26 34 59.934072(4) 1.5(3)E+6 a 0+
61Fe 26 35 60.936745(21) 5.98(6) min 3/2-,5/2- 61mFe 861(3) keV 250(10)
ns 9/2+# 62Fe 26 36 61.936767(16) 68(2) s 0+ 63Fe 26 37 62.94037(18)
6.1(6) s (5/2)- 64Fe 26 38 63.9412(3) 2.0(2) s 0+ 65Fe 26 39
64.94538(26) 1.3(3) s 1/2-# 65mFe 364(3) keV 430(130) ns (5/2-) 66Fe 26
40 65.94678(32) 440(40) ms 0+ 67Fe 26 41 66.95095(45) 394(9) ms 1/2-#
67mFe 367(3) keV 64(17) µs (5/2-) 68Fe 26 42 67.95370(75) 187(6) ms 0+
69Fe 26 43 68.95878(54)# 109(9) ms 1/2-# 70Fe 26 44 69.96146(64)#
94(17) ms 0+ 71Fe 26 45 70.96672(86)# 30# ms [>300 ns] 7/2+# 72Fe 26 46
71.96962(86)# 10# ms [>300 ns] 0+
— end quoting Wikipedia on isotopes of iron —
What I noticed from the above is that there is no favoritism for fusion
in that the decay rates are equally balanced between fusion and
fission.
Maybe, perhaps, some chemist or physicist knows of an element which has
the most narrowly defined emission of energy between isotopes seperated
by one neutron. It is a shame that decays do not come in "radio
frequency" or do they? A frequency of emission that matches what the
force of gravity would be in the nucleus. Because if it did, then we
would have direct evidence that gravity does exist in the nucleus. So
instead of emission energy we have to work with time and decay rates.
If the force of gravity does not exist in the nucleus of atoms, then
the decay rates should not favor fusion. From the above, there is no
favoritism of fusion and so I would enter that as evidence in support
of the idea that gravity does not exist in the nucleus of atoms or
isotopes.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have
Comments (18)
