How Gravity Works

[sm0ky2]

I know I'm probably just wasting my breath here (as usual)  ...  But ...  How about a reference?   Home brewed & spewed theories (which I think these are for the most part) just don't cut it..

well since i cant take you to the lab, and you are seemingly unwilling to research/understand the things you are trying to discuss here, i'll give you some visuals on the internet to look at....

http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-02.htm

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/27942/2  <near the middle

[newbie123]

well since i cant take you to the lab, and you are seemingly unwilling to research/understand the things you are trying to discuss here, i'll give you some visuals on the internet to look at....

http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-02.htm

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/27942/2  <near the middle

Lol..  Am I missing something? Or are you just trolling?    You said the following:

isolate a neutron and bombard it with a highly charged electron-packet. pieces are blown off, some recombine from and to the electron, some energy is absorbed, and the result is a fully-charged proton.
with a normally-charged electron circling it, and an antineutrino, which is a fragment from the exploded neutron/electron, and are considered 'neutral' themselves. like a 'chargeless' quark, they are made up of several pieces.

an unisolated neutron will undergo this process naturally via electrons from the environment, anywhere from immediately upwards to 12-15 minutes.

Then you tried to support those claims with the above references...   Where in your references does it explain that "isolated neutrons" bombarded with electrons will blow off pieces which form "fully-charged" protons?   Or "unisolated neutrons will undergo this process ... blah blah .. 12-15 minutes? Seriously..  Your references have nothing related to what you are trying to support..

Or how about a reference for your claim that neutrons are composed of ~136 charges?   

[gravityblock]

I know I'm probably just wasting my breath here (as usual)  ...  But ...  How about a reference?   Home brewed & spewed theories (which I think these are for the most part) just don't cut it..

Same pattern from you in all the threads.  "Show me a reference, Home brewed physics, spreading misinformation, not in a peer review journal, not a credible reference, pushing own personal theories, etc".  Don't you get it, this is not the physics forum.  That is where you should be, not here. 

Physics should be used as a guide only.  It is not the "Be all" solution to everything due to being incomplete, inaccurate, mistakes/errors, and misleading at times.

Physics says energy/mass can't be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another.  I find this theory to be very flawed.  The very fact that energy and mass are present in the universe is evidence that energy/mass had to be created or converted at some point in "Time" from something, for it to have an existence today.

If it was created or converted in the past (Time), then it can be created now and in the future. 

Time/Space can be converted to Energy/Mass and Energy/Mass can be converted to Time/Space.  Since Time is infinite, meaning to have a no beginning and a no end, then there is an infinite amount of energy or mass available in the universe that can be converted from Space/Time.

If energy/mass is being converted from space/time or something else, then the physics statement is incomplete.  If it was created from something in the past or present, then the physics statement is wrong.  Energy/mass is either being converted from something else or was created from something else either in the past or now.  No need for a reference to prove their statement or theory to be either incomplete or wrong just by using common sense, which is not in you. 

Physics is correct in saying energy or mass can only be converted from one form to another, but that is an incomplete statement.  The complete statement should be, "energy, mass, space, and time are converted from one form to another. Since Time is infinite, then there must be an infinite amount of energy, mass, and space also".  Reference material on this is the fact of our very existence.  This is just more home brewed physics for you (Half Baked in the Half Baked Section).  Nothing can be accepted, tested, proven to be correct or not, until it has been brewed first. Weather it was brewed in a garage at home, a lab, thought experiments or through real world experiments it should make no difference.

The universes have a no beginning and a no end, since Time is flowing from the future to the past and from the past to the future.  You can't have one without the other.  The universe is very dual or bipolar.  Over Unity is very possible.  The universe itself is an Over Unity system, completely self-efficient.  Here you and I are just waiting for nature to recycle us, to continue the process.

[newbie123]

.

[newbie123]

Same pattern from you in all the threads.  "Show me a reference, Home brewed physics, spreading misinformation, not in a peer review journal, not a credible reference, pushing own personal theories, etc".  Don't you get it, this is not the physics forum.  That is where you should be, not here. 

Physics should be used as a guide only.  It is not the "Be all" solution to everything due to being incomplete, inaccurate, mistakes/errors, and misleading at times.

Physics says energy/mass can't be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another.  I find this theory to be very flawed.  The very fact that energy and mass are present in the universe is evidence that energy/mass had to be created or converted at some point in "Time" for it to have an existence today.

If it was created or converted in the past (Time), then it can be created now and in the future.  Time/Space can be converted to Energy/Mass and Energy/Mass can be converted to Time/Space.  Since Time is infinite, meaning to have a no beginning and a no end, then there is an infinite amount of energy or mass available in the universe that can be converted from Space/Time. 

Physics is correct in saying energy or mass can only be converted from one form to another, but that is an incomplete statement.  The complete statement should be, "energy, mass, space, and time are converted from one form to another. Since Time is infinite, then there must be an infinite amount of energy, mass, and space also".  Reference material on this is the fact of our very existence.  This is just more home brewed physics for you.  Nothing can be accepted, tested, proven to be correct or not, until it has been brewed first. Weather it was brewed in a garage at home, a lab, thought experiments or through real world experiments it should make no difference.

The universes have a no beginning and a no end, since Time is flowing from the future to the past and from the past to the future.  You can't have one without the other.  The universe is very dual or bipolar.  Over Unity is very possible.  The universe itself is an Over Unity system, completely self-efficient.  Here you and I are just waiting for nature to recycle us, to continue the process.

Your thoughts on the universe and overunity sound reasonable to me...  But be aware this is philosophy, not physics...  Physics REQUIRES measurement, experimentation, REFERENCES,  and mathematics...   Not just stating " I find this theory to be very flawed."