Thank you, Christopher Baird. https://sciencequestionswithchris.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/why-is-gravity-the-strongest-force/
On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. Ordered > from strongest to weakest, the forces are 1) the strong nuclear force, 2) > the electromagnetic force, 3) the weak nuclear force, and 4) gravity. If > you take two protons and hold them very close together, they will exert > several forces on each other. Because they both have mass, the two protons > exert gravitational attraction on each other. Because they both have a > positive electric charge, they both exert electromagnetic repulsion on each > other. Also, they both have internal “color” charge and thus exert > attraction via the strong nuclear force. > > Because the strong nuclear force is the strongest at short distances, it > dominates over the other forces at that small dimension and the two protons > become bound, forming a helium nucleus (typically a neutron is also needed > to keep the helium nucleus stable). Gravity is so weak at the atomic scale > that scientists can typically ignore it without incurring significant > errors in their calculations. > > However, on astronomical scales, gravity does dominate over the other > forces. There are two reasons for this: 1) gravity has a long range, and 2) > there is no such thing as negative mass. Each force dies off as the two > objects experiencing the force become more separated. The rate at which the > forces die off is different for each force. The strong and weak nuclear > forces are very short ranged, meaning that outside of the tiny nuclei of > atoms, these forces quickly drop to zero. The tiny size of the nuclei of > atoms is a direct result of the extreme short range of the nuclear forces. > Two particles that are nanometers apart are far too distant from each other > to exert an appreciable nuclear force on each other. > > If the nuclear forces are so weak for two particles only nanometers apart, > it should be obvious that the nuclear forces are even more negligible on > astronomical scales. For instance, the earth and sun are far too distant > from each other (billions of meters) for their nuclear forces to reach each > other. In contrast to the nuclear forces, importantly both the > electromagnetic force and gravity have infinite range and die off in > strength as 1/r2. > If both electromagnetism and gravity have infinite range, why is the earth > held in orbit around the sun by gravity and not by the electromagnetic > force? The reason is that there is no such thing as negative mass, but > there is such thing as negative electric charge. If you place a single > positive electric charge near a single negative electric charge, and then > measure their combined force on another, distant charge, you find that the > negative charge tends to cancel out the positive charge somewhat. Such an > object is called an electric dipole. The electromagnetic force caused by an > electric dipole dies off as 1/r3 and not 1/r2 because of this canceling > effect. Similarly, if you take two positive electric charges and two > negative charges and place them close together properly, you have created > an electric quadrupole. Almost without exception, the electromagnetic force > due to an electric quadrupole dies off even more rapidly, as 1/r4, because > the negative charges do such a good job of canceling the positive charges. > As you add more and more positive charges to an equal number of negative > charges, the range of the electromagnetic force of the system gets shorter > and shorter. The interesting thing is that most objects are made out of > atoms, and most atoms have an equal number of positive and negative > electric charges. Therefore, despite the fact that the raw electromagnetic > force of a single charge has an infinite range, the effective range of the > electromagnetic force for typical objects such as stars and planets is much > shorter. In fact, neutral atoms have an effective electromagnetic range on > the order of nanometers. > > On astronomical scales, this leaves only gravity. If there were such a > thing as negative mass (antimatter has positive mass), and if atoms > generally contained equal parts of positive and negative mass, then gravity > would suffer the same fate as electromagnetism and there would be no > significant force at the astronomical scale. Fortunately, there is no > negative mass, and therefore the gravitational force of multiple bodies > close together is always additive. In summary, gravity is the weakest of > the forces in general, but it is the dominant one at astronomical scales > because it has the longest range and because there is no negative mass. > > However, if we could create a structure that contains only one polarity of > spin, that structure would behave exactly like gravity in its effect with > both gravity and EMF being of infinite range and additive in nature. A > selective template or mask enforces this spin selection process. This is > the essence and power of the monopole. This is at the taproot of LENR. > > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> In this way, the additive nature of gravity can transform this most >>> feeble force in nature into a process that is so powerful that it can rip >>> space and time apart to produce black holes of gigantic size. >> >> >> Would you like salad dressing with that? >> >> Eric >> > >
