The universe doesn’t care about your theory. The mass of the proton is less than the mass of the neutron. If your theory claims otherwise, then your theory is utterly, unambiguously, irrevocably wrong.
For that matter, the mass of the up quark (mass 2 MeV, charge 2/3 e) is much less than that of the Z boson (mass 91 GeV, charge 0), and the mass of the top quark (mass 172 GeV, charge 2/3 e) is much greater than that of the photon (mass 0, charge 0). Charge and mass are unrelated. If your theory claims otherwise, then your theory is utterly, unambiguously, irrevocably wrong.
As many of us have said here, the mass of the electron, neutron, proton, etc. go back to very early 20th century experiments. Maybe you should look them up before declaring you have a theory of everything.
The OP isn’t worth talking to, but there may be other people reading this thread who, aside from the voyeuristic appeal of watching a real-time car accident, are interested in particle physics.
Neutrons, left to their own devices (unbound to protons in an atomic nucleus), are unstable. They decay within 15 minutes, into protons, etc.
What doesn’t make any sense are your claims to the contrary. Especially since you have NO EXPERIMENTAL DATA to substantiate your claims.
Also, the change in mass of a common discharged battery is so insignificant that you actually have to calculate the change. If you attempt to weigh it using even the most sensitive scales, humidity or evaporation or dust would negate any readings you might collect.
Finally, rods act like capacitors. There is no positive or negative “flow” in a charged rod in the experiment you are talking about. A discharge occurs when the rod is grounded.
Nothing you say makes any sense and you contradict yourself and well established science with every new revelation of “your theory”. Read a science book and stop wasting everyone’s time with this nonsense.
And high school and college students can easily reproduce the measurements of the charge and mass of the electron (I did so myself some decades ago - measuring electron charge via the Millikan method and measuring the charge to mass ratio via the Thompson method).
That actually kinda works: in transistors and diodes, the movement of an “empty spot” among a bunch of electrons can act like a positive charge moving the other way.
Your theory not only has to succeed…it needs to cause two centuries of established science to fail. You have to prove Millikan, and Franklin, and Volta, and Ampere, and Henry…and a hundred others…absolutely wrong.
Meanwhile, you’re using terms and words that no one here can clearly understand, and some of us have had graduate-level physics classes.
This is unclear to me. As is your moving back and forth between using charge in the traditional sense as something static, and when you say it’s flowing, despite it being a static state.
How about describing in some detail what happens. I have two rods, 1 and 2, and four pieces of cork A, B, C, D.
I rub appropriate pieces of cloth and the rod and touch rod 1 to cork A and B, and rod 2, to cork C, D. The corks are close enough to each other that they’re attracted repulsed, but not close enough to touch. I can see that A and B are repelling each other, that C and D are repelling each other, and that A and B, are attracted to C and D.
I can also see that A and B are repelled by 1 and attracted to 2, while for C and D it’s the reverse.
And all of this can be set up as a static and persistent state. Much like one magnet hovering above another.
There are several examples of charged plates being used, but nothing that matches his descriptions.
[/QUOTE
that is because the language is wrong and misleading. all of the observed phenomenon by the scientists who did the experiments, used the same misleading language they had been educated with to describe what they were seeing.[/QUOTE]
You misunderstand what I was saying. I was talking about your description of the experiments and saying they don’t match any experiments I can identify, not that the results of the experiments do not match your claimed explanation.
No, you again are misunderstanding. The issue is not whether a proton is positive or neutral or empty or whatever, the issue is that you use a common word like “space” but then cannot come up with a simple description of what you mean when you say “space” is displaced, and the displaced space piles up and has more space than the space around it. That is an incoherent mess.
Look at the example I gave of an analogy. That analogy may or may not correctly reflect what you mean, but it is an attempt to use better words to describe the supposed behavior so we can at least comprehend what you are trying to explain. Your words are gobbledygook that are nigh impossible to make sense of, independent of any disagreements with established science.
Then you couple that with times when it is difficult to tell whether you are restating what established science claims or stating your version. You say something about electrons being attracted to the negative plate, and we’re left guessing whether you are complaining that that is what science claims happens (it is not), or whether you are claiming that is your explanation of what is occurring.
Hell, even if I were to agree that words are better suited to explaining your concepts than math, the words you choose and the way you arrange them are far inferior to the words and use by, well, anyone else. Your use of standard English is mangled and you do not make clear whether you are explaining what science claims or what you claim.
I am not confused by what established science claims, nor am I confused by your concept that there is only one type of charge, and the difference in subatomic particles is due to some presence or absence instead. What confuses me is your inability to define your terms as to how you are using them such that I can glean the intent of your descriptions.
For example, when you say space is displaced, I can sort of see that as taking “space” to mean “the fabric of spacetime”, and thus matter does not sit in spacetime, it pushes it out of the way kind of like putting bananas into pudding - the bananas move the pudding outward.
Except you seem to be stating that the spacetime fabric is compressed as it is displaced and impedes upon the spacetime that is already there. So that is why I brought up the foam analogy, where the foam gets squished around the marbles. Thus, spacetime has different densities depending upon how much matter is around to displace spacetime and thereby squish into the spacetime already there.
This bears some casual resemblance to Einstein’s description of gravity being a warping so spacetime. I say casual, because there doesn’t seem to be any conceptual framework to make the two concepts connect in any way, just the behavior of space as getting bent and/or squished.
See, this is an example of what I mean.
That is not how a generator works.
Says you? By what evidence do you contradict the earliest experiments in electricity that provide the common understanding of how CRTs are built? Did we magically stumble on a working arrangement of parts despite having a bass-ackwards understanding of what charge even is?
No. Movement of a conductor through a magnetic field will induce a current. Generators use repeated winding of copper wire around a core that is then spun through a magnetic field to generate a flow of electrons in the wire. The magnetic poles have nothing to do with pushing or pulling electrons. Magnetic north/south are not the same thing as electrical positive and negative.
No they are not. They are interrelated and couple the behavior of electricity and magnetism, but they are distinct conceptual identities that act at right angles to each other.
You’ve mangled something here, because you have a positive pole pushing electrons and a negative pole pulling them, which is exactly the opposite of opposites attract.
You do not appear to understand what those terms mean or how the concepts are understood by science to be able to make a coherent statement of an alternative explanation.
Ditto.
You think the concepts as you understand how science describes them is horseshit, but it is your understanding of what science says that is lacking.
Agreed.
Something got lost in translation. naita did not describe any process of crossing rods. You said
Underlining added.
Protons and neutrons are made of different combinations of quarks, so they have different masses.
There is another explanation: you have a faulty understanding of what makes a proton and a neutron, so your assumption that a charged particle should weigh more than an uncharged one is faulty.
I could almost have sympathy for anyone who thinks that “Dark Matter” is horse-shit, because it hasn’t been discovered, only indirectly observed and inferred, and nobody knows what it actually is.
(It isn’t horse-shit, of course, but I don’t leap to disrespect for people who think it is.)
But antimatter? Observed many, many times, and created in countless particle accelerator experiments. Antimatter is as well-observed in reality as protons and neutrons! You might as well have doubts about the existence of electric charge!
Yes, but this is someone who thinks that dark matter (or dark energy) was conjured up by physicists to explain negative energy, which he thinks is the same as negative electric charge. It’s hard for me, at least, to have much sympathy for him.
Each time you repeat and confirm any findings of a " scientific" experiment it is only relative to the point in space at which you did the experiment. You would have to have instruments that were not effected by relativity, to be able to see the difference of the same experiment in two different points of space. My theory is correct, and it is a theory regardless of the lack of math. It does not change the world, the world is still the same, only your understanding of the world and the universe we live in