Jump to content
Science Forums

andrewgray

Members
  • Content Count

    232
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

andrewgray last won the day on September 26

andrewgray had the most liked content!

About andrewgray

  • Rank
    Questioning
  • Birthday 10/06/1956

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Austin, Texas, USA, Earth
  • Interests
    General Relativity, QM replacement, Electronics, Software, Sports.

Contact Methods

Converted

  • Biography
    20 years in electronics/software industry. Math & Physics degrees. Studied General Relativity & QM.
  • Location
    Austin, Texas, USA
  • Interests
    Tennis, Volleyball, Biking, Rollerblading, Physics
  • Occupation
    Software/Electronics

Recent Profile Visitors

6,367 profile views
  1. Montgomery, Well, if an experimenter cannot measure a value past 10 decimal places, then the value of the 36th decimal place can be hypothesized to be anything! This is just plain philosophical logic. So, I am hypothesizing that the sum of the repulsive electrical forces plus the sum of the attractive electrical forces between proton/electron pairs is slightly skewed towards the attractive side by one part in , leaving a residual force of gravity. You do not have to agree, but I can hypothesize this difference no problem! I believe it is justified just because we have a force of gra
  2. I'm glad you asked this question, Devin. You see, it is not residual charge that I am talking about. It is residual electric force. There is a big difference. What I am saying is that atoms are completely made up of protons and electrons (each neutron is a proton and electron combo). Then, between two bodies that have the save number of protons and electrons (neutral), the attractive electrical forces are ever, ever, ever, ever so slightly greater than the repulsive electrical forces by one part in ! This says nothing about charge. We are only dealing with attractive and repulsive elec
  3. Devin, Correct. Correct. What gravity is... is a Residual Electrical Force. That is, (between 2 bodies) the sum of the electrical attractive forces plus the sum of the electrical repulsive forces is very close to zero, but not quite! The sum of the electrical attractive forces plus the sum of the electrical repulsive forces is close to zero by one part in ! That is unimaginably close to zero! But that extremely, extremely small left-over-force is enough to make gravity. We cannot say what the residual charges are. Only that the sum of the electical attractive f
  4. OK. Gravity. Like we were saying, the key to understanding gravity is the neutron's mass. Since we have shown that there are no gamma particles, this equation: cannot be used, and we must revert back to Chadwick's original calculations for the neutron mass, in which he found that the neutron WAS ACTUALLY LIGHTER than a hydrogen atom! This means that the neutron actually IS a composite particle, made up of a bound electron and proton. Finally, this explains why the inertial mass and the gravitational mass are the same! How? Well first we must digress mo
  5. Yes, Devin, this New Wisdom Unifies Physics theory "goes against the grain". There will be no more... Light Particles Matter Waves Virtual Particles Wormholes Multiverses NonLocality Entanglement..... etc... Is it so bad to be against this grain??? The grain of current modern physics is very coarse and needs a good sanding! Our new theory is what actually goes with the grain and will become the orthodox. Perhaps Devin, if we have to leave you behind, you will at least listen to what we are trying to tell you, and consider it!
  6. Like I explained earlier in this thread: So "wave-particle duality" is gone. It really is silly once you know what is going on! So Devin "No!". I am not with you. Devin, don't go there! Now can we get back to gravity?
  7. The final issue that I have with the new forum software is no [math] [/math] capability. Anyone know about if the new forum will support this? The new forum software has some (more) issues. it is not showing the images in my thread. In addition, the new software is requiring that all new images be encrypted with https, not just http. Why would science images need to be encrypted in a public forum? Andrew Ancel Gray
  8. Ocean Breeze,

    It appears you have new forum software.  The change has deleted the last two messages that I posted to my thread...

    7 Reasons To Abandon Quantum Mechanics-And Embrace This New Theory

    Any way to get them back?

  9. Devin, I am not sure what your "gravitation" is that you are calculating here. But I am glad you mentioned it! In order to understand gravitation, the key is to understanding the neutron. The key is the neutron's mass. Hopefully we can have a friendly discussion about the neutron mass here. In the 1930's James Chadwick and the Joliot-Curies were arguing over the mass of the neutron. Chadwick calculated and insisted that the neutron mass was less than that of the hydrogen atom, and the Joliot-Curies calculated and insisted that the neutron was greater than
  10. Well, I guess it is time to move on from the Episode1/Episode2 videos to Episode3_TheAtom. Let's discuss the Intermittent Electron Atom in Episode 3, please. What do you think about the "New-Wisdom-Non-Radiating-Planetary-Orbits-In-The-Episode3-Atom"? Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 1) https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing Episode 3: The Atom! (Part 2) https://drive.google...iew?usp=sharing Andrew Ancel Gray
  11. OceanBreeze, Thanks for the interesting discussion! Now, I doubt crystal orientation has much to do with electron ejection along the light wave polarization: If the crystal structure gave a bias in direction, then the poly-crystalline copper, which would have crystals aligned in all directions, would not have such a bias. But we see the same "along-the-polarization" direction of ejection from poly-crystalline copper: So again, I doubt that it is the crystal structure giving the bias towards the polarization. So the bottom line is this:
  12. Devin, Now come on Devin. "Light Particles pulling electrons out?" By what mechanism do these fictitious light particles "pull on" electrons (oh my goodness!)??? I sure hope you start to see that "light particles" are never needed for any explanation in physics. Andrew Ancel Gray
  13. Ok, OceanBreeze, sorry for the misunderstanding. And thanks for removing trolls from this thread! I had no idea. Now back to the understanding! Yes, photoelectrons do show a big preference for ejection along the polarization of the incident light wave. Here is the most stark evidence for that: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.37.1233 The Angular Distribution of Photoelectrons Ejected by Polarized Ultraviolet Light in Potassium Vapor Milton A. Chaffee Phys. Rev. 37, 1233 – Published 15 May 1931 Anothe
  14. So, OceanBreeze. I am curious. How would YOU explain the perpendicular photoelectric ejections along the polarization of the incoming light wave? So for example, how do YOU explain that if you shine a horizontally polarized laser onto a metal, then no electrons will come out? How do you explain that? Wouldn't "horizontal light particles" (oh my goodness!) still be absorbed by the electrons and get knocked out? How are you going to bring in the wave characteristic (polarization) of the light wave if you think "particles"? Do the "horizontal light particles" not get absorbed by the elec
×
×
  • Create New...