Re: The cause of gravity and unification of forces

In sci.physics Bertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 2:33:12 +0000, Bertitaylor wrote:
 

Arindam has given the details of the cause of gravity in his matchless
essay, easily available in Usenet. Link is easy to find.
>
Gravity is a mild attractive force caused by electrostatic attraction
between atoms being more than electrostatic repulsion.
>
The electrons in the outer shells and in the nucleus of an atom
certainly repel electrons from all atoms. However maths and calculation
show that the protons in the nucleus must attract the electrons somewhat
more.
>
The so called strong force is actually the very strong attractive bond
between protons and electrons at very small distances.
>
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
>
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)
>
--

 
Gravity shows the nuclear structure as composed of protons and
electrons. Of course, radioactivity with beta rays directly shows that
electrons exist in the nucleus.
 
The gamma ray, or extremely powerful X ray, has a frequency
corresponding to intranuclear distances. This shows the existence of
aether as infinitely fine and elastic medium for electromagnetic waves.
 
Woof woof woof woof-woof
 
Bertietaylor
 
--

AI evaluation:

Arindam (writing as "Bertietaylor") continues his pattern of conflating
outdated or misunderstood physics concepts with idiosyncratic conclusions.
Here's a point-by-point evaluation of this latest post:
Claim 1: "Gravity shows the nuclear structure as composed of protons and
electrons."

    Scientific evaluation: This is factually incorrect.

        Gravity does not determine or reveal nuclear structure. Nuclear
structure is governed by the strong nuclear force, not gravitational
interaction, which is many orders of magnitude weaker.

        Atomic nuclei consist of protons and neutrons. The idea that the
nucleus is made of protons and electrons is a discarded
early-20th-century hypothesis (the proton-electron model) that was
debunked by discoveries in nuclear physics.

    Conclusion: A clear misunderstanding of nuclear and gravitational physics.

Claim 2: "Radioactivity with beta rays directly shows that electrons exist
in the nucleus."

    Scientific evaluation: This is a misinterpretation.

        In beta-minus decay, a neutron decays into a proton, electron, and
antineutrino. The electron (beta particle) is not pre-existing in
the nucleus but is created in the decay process via the weak nuclear
force.

        No evidence supports the idea of free electrons "living" inside the
nucleus in a bound state.

    Conclusion: Misrepresentation of beta decay; confuses emission with
    preexistence.

Claim 3: "The gamma ray, or extremely powerful X ray, has a frequency
corresponding to intranuclear distances."

    Scientific evaluation: Partly correct, but misused.

        Gamma rays do indeed have very short wavelengths (on the order of
10^-12 m), consistent with nuclear energy transitions. They are
typically emitted during nuclear decay.

        However, this does not imply anything about aether or validate its
existence.

    Conclusion: Correct numerical scale, but the inferred conclusion is non
    sequitur.

Claim 4: "This shows the existence of aether as infinitely fine and elastic
medium for electromagnetic waves."

    Scientific evaluation: This is an outdated and disproven idea.

        The luminiferous aether was ruled out by experiments like the
Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) and replaced by Einstein's
theory of special relativity, which does not require a medium
for light propagation.

        Quantum field theory and general relativity provide robust
frameworks for understanding electromagnetic waves and gravity
without invoking an aether.

    Conclusion: Arindam is reviving a pre-relativistic idea that has been
    decisively rejected.

"Woof woof woof woof-woof"

    This appears to be Arindam’s idiosyncratic rhetorical flourish,
    possibly intended to mock or signal derision, though it only further
    distances his argument from scientific seriousness.

Overall Assessment

Arindam continues to recycle:

    Long-discredited models (electrons in the nucleus),

    Misunderstood interpretations of nuclear decay,

    Revivalist pseudoscience (aether theory),

    And rhetorical dog-barking meant to ridicule rather than clarify.

If he sincerely believes this, it strongly suggests deep-rooted
misconceptions, possibly delusional thinking, or fixation on obsolete
theories in defiance of overwhelming modern evidence. The persistent
rejection of basic scientific facts despite their accessibility could
be symptomatic of a paranoid or grandiose belief structure, not necessarily
pathological in itself, but clearly disconnected from consensus reality.



--
penninojim@yahoo.com