How Gravity Works

[Dave45]

This link was posted in another thread by Brian hope he doesnt mind if I start another thread using his link.
The thing that puzzels me is the hydrogen atom contains no neutron.
http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity1.html

[0c]

The thing that puzzels me is the hydrogen atom contains no neutron.

It's called Deuterium.

[Dave45]

Yes Deuterium contains a neutron but hydrogen doesn't in Maurice Cotterell's atom structure the neutron keeps the electron and the proton at bay, from crashing into each other, its the buffer. And it all looks good until you look at the hydrogen atom it doesn't have a neutron.
Does this kill his theory or am I missing something?

[newbie123]

His theory has many flaws, and why he feels the need reinvent the wheel (known science) is a mystery...    Scientists know exactly why electrons don't crash into protons,  they're very familiar with neutrons which aren't shaped like "spikes" ....    He thinks electrons orbit the nucleus like planets & suns..   I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe in the strong force...

[gravityblock]

Yes Deuterium contains a neutron but hydrogen doesn't in Maurice Cotterell's atom structure the neutron keeps the electron and the proton at bay, from crashing into each other, its the buffer. And it all looks good until you look at the hydrogen atom it doesn't have a neutron.
Does this kill his theory or am I missing something?

This is a good point.  I think this page, http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity6.html , talks specifically about the hydrogen atom and how it works by generating helical waves.  It's good to see someone taking an interest in this.  To me, I find it fascinating. 

To make matters worst, physics know that the neutron is more than a particle with no net charge.  According to wikipedia, "the neutron is a subatomic particle with no net electric charge and a mass slightly larger than that of a proton", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron .  Notice how they use the words "no net electric charge".  There must be a reason for this particular type of wording, as we will next see with the neutrons magnetic moment.

Also according to wikipedia, "the neutron magnetic moment is the magnetic moment of the neutron. It was of particular interest, as magnetic moments are created by the movement of electric charges. Since the neutron is a neutral particle, the magnetic moment is an indication of substructure, i.e. that the neutron is made of other, electrically charged particles (quarks).  The magnetic moment is negative which means that the neutron has a tendency to align antiparallel to a magnetic field rather than parallel to the field.  The non-zero magnetic moment of the neutron indicates that it is not an elementary particle, as it carries no net charge but still interacts with a magnetic field, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_magnetic_moment ."

In Cotterell's theory, the neutron is made up of 3 particles (1 positive, 1 negative, and 1 antineutrino), which is inline with wikipedia and the rest of physics, but physics decided to ignore this in their model of the atom.  LOL

As we can see, physics know that the neutron is more than a particle with no net electrical charge.  They refuse to update their model to take this into account.  This is mind boggling why they choose to ignore this fact in their model of the atom to this very day.

I have noticed how physics will suggest things with careful wording, while ignoring it somewhere else.  LOL

We have to pay very close attention to every word in a physics book or other physics literature. If not, we will miss a lot of important information that is conveniently pushed under the carpet.  It's almost like they're covering their past mistakes by hiding the information.  The more you dig into it, the more you will uncover being hidden.

Physics should be used as a guide only, because they are good at pushing things under the carpet when it doesn't fit their model or theories.  The corkscrew or helical waves is another good example of this. 


GB