The Acceleration Due To Gravity Inside The Nucleus

[Grahamshortuk]

I understand that the strength of the force of gravity diminishes with increasing distance from the mass "generating" it (for want of a more precise phrase).
So I was wanting to know what the acceleration due to gravity / force of gravity would be for a neutron nestled up to a proton in a nucleus. Presumably it would be related to the inverse square of an incredibly small distance and the mass of the nucleon. Certainly from outside the atom the gravity of a proton would be very small, but what about when you are right up close and personal with a proton?

[Strange]

You should be able to work it out from F=G x m1 x m2 / r²

You can get the mass from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

Size is less well defined, but there is probably something useful here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus

And G is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

[WayneFrancis]

Also note that at that scale it is not gravity binding them together but the strong nuclear force. Even at that close distance our classical models of gravity don't match observations. This is why there is research into quantum gravity which is different then classical gravity.

[Nereid]

Also note that at that scale it is not gravity binding them together but the strong nuclear force. Even at that close distance our classical models of gravity don't match observations. This is why there is research into quantum gravity which is different then classical gravity.

(bold added)

They don't?

[coffeekraken]

Well, if you can follow the math this paper may give you the info you are looking for plus the relationship to QCD another poster mentioned: http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0520
I say that it 'may give you the info' because I'm not a physicist/I can't follow the math and this paper explores an extreme environment that may not ultimately answer your more basic question.

Not related: I have to add my two cents: quarks being squashed into leptons = awesome! I didn't realize that such was theoretically possible. Of course, the Arxiv is moderated, not peer-reviewed, so perhaps only some practicing physicists could give us some clue as to the veracity of this. Nevertheless, these are the kinds of cool questions that motivate people like me to study physics.

[Geo Kaplan]

Also note that at that scale it is not gravity binding them together but the strong nuclear force. Even at that close distance our classical models of gravity don't match observations. This is why there is research into quantum gravity which is different then classical gravity.

I see that Nereid has beaten me to the punch. At the short scales in question, gravitation is (extrapolated) to be negligible, but not absent. AFAIK, there have been no direct tests of gravitation at anywhere near these scales, so there aren't any measurements that disagree with classical models in that regime. I don't think there have been many tests below ~1mm spacing, in fact (Google "Eot-Wash", e.g.), and it would surprise me greatly if there were any below 1um. If you know otherwise, I would appreciate pointers to the relevant literature, because I'm having a difficult time imagining what sort of experimental setup would permit tests in that range.

[coffeekraken]

Here is a really interesting and tangentially related thread from physicsforum.com from back in 2004: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=44755
At the end Anti_Crank summarizes the scientific concensus regarding the debate that developed over whether or not gravity is a significant force at the subatomic scale, or more specifically whether or not gravity is a significant factor in explaining the structure of nucleons:

"-EM waves obey Maxwell's equations at all known ranges, including well past nuclear range. Hence it is contradictory to assume that classical forces from electrodynamics break down at such scales while the Maxwell equations stand since they come from the same mathematics.
-Scattering experiments confirm that the EM force works as expected. In fact, accelerators would not work if classical EM would break down at those scales/energies. In practice, we routinely accelerate particles to high energies (the LHC at CERN can accelerate protons to 100GeV) without any surprises.
-We know from scattering experiments that nucleons (protons/neutrons) have constituents, whose fractional charges can be measured and agree with the quark model
-The strong force model explains the observed spectrum of mesons and baryons beautifully. Heavy quark systems can be solved with the Schroedinger equation and an approximate, single-gluon exchange radial potential. The spectrum of allowed states for such systems matches observations very well.
-A force exists between nucleons and their constituents that allows certain decays which cannot be otherwise explained. The lifetimes are too small for the decays to be either electromagnetic or weak. We know this because lifetimes are inversely proportional to couplings. Gravity - unless strengthened immensly - is nowhere near the right coupling strength to allow such things.
-Gravity is negligible on the nuclear range, unless radical changes are made to it. Such changes are not warranted by any known results, and would make it a downright ugly theory. Try finding the ground state, using either Schroedinger eqn or Bohr quantization rules if Schr. is too hard, for a system of two heavy quarks bound by the gravitational potential. What's the expected radius - anywhere near the size of nuclei?
-Gluons are one prediction of QCD. Their existence, as well as some properties, can be inferred from three-jet events in accelerators and deep nuclear scattering experiments. The latter indicate that over 50% of a proton's momentum is carried by neutral (non-charged) constituents.
-Regarding neutron stars: see Nereid's post. "

[jfribrg]

Somewhere I recall that the smallest distance in which the gravitational constant was measured was about 1 millimeter. I also recall that one of the predictions of string theory is that the gravitational "constant" is not constant at distances in the micrometer range and smaller, but that this had not yet been measured. The problem of course is that electromagnetic and nuclear forces along with the quantum behavior of matter tend to overwhlem the system at these very small scales. Compounding the problem of course is the uncertainty principle which makes it difficult to even take accurate measurements without altering the system in the process. Maybe someone will find a way to isolate the effect of gravity from the other effects, but so far nobody has been able to do that.

[joema]

...what the acceleration due to gravity / force of gravity would be for a neutron nestled up to a proton in a nucleus....

Under those conditions, the strong nuclear force swamps any gravitational effect. Gravity is 10 to the 38th power weaker than the strong force.

Everything with mass has gravity, so isolated protons and neutrons have gravitational attraction. Gravity has no range limit, so if the proton and neutron were on opposite sides of the galaxy, they still attract each other gravitationally, just weakly. At closer distances the attraction increases at the same rate for tiny particles as for big objects.

A neutron is neutrally charged, but two protons would repel each other from electromagnetic force, which is also vastly stronger (10 to the 36th power) than gravity. But even electromagnetic force is 100 times weaker than the strong nuclear force.

However at very close distances (around a proton diameter) the strong nuclear force is so vastly more powerful that gravity may as well not exist.

[Grahamshortuk]

I have been looking around the internet to research this and I have found an award winning paper that has the following as its introduction:

"We review our model of a proton that obeys the Schwarzschild condition. We
find that only a very small percentage (~10-39%) of the vacuum fluctuations available
within a proton volume need be cohered and converted to mass-energy in order for the
proton to meet the Schwarzschild condition. This proportion is similar to that between
gravitation and the strong force where gravitation is thought to be ~10-40 weaker than
the strong force. Gravitational attraction between two contiguous Schwarzschild
protons can easily accommodate both nucleon and quark confinement. In this picture,
we can treat “strong” gravity as the strong force. We calculate that two contiguous
Schwarzschild protons would rotate at c and have a period of 10-23s and a frequency of
1022 Hz which is characteristic of the strong force interaction time and a close
approximation of the gamma emission typically associated with nuclear decay. We
include a scaling law and find that the Schwarzschild proton falls near the least squares
trend line for organized matter. Using a semi-classical model, we find that a proton
charge orbiting at a proton radius at c generates a good approximation to the measured
anomalous magnetic moment."

There then follows a mathematical discourse showing how these calculations were made.
The paper is here, and I would greatly appreciate your considered discussion of it, as its results greatly contrast with what has been said so far. I thank you in advance for taking the time to offer your analysis, critique and insights.
Trying to find online critique of this paper has yeilded few results for me, with only the calculated figure of the mass/energy density inside the volume of the proton being a point of contention.

[Nereid]

I have been looking around the internet to research this and I have found an award winning paper that has the following as its introduction:

"We review our model of a proton that obeys the Schwarzschild condition. We
find that only a very small percentage (~10-39%) of the vacuum fluctuations available
within a proton volume need be cohered and converted to mass-energy in order for the
proton to meet the Schwarzschild condition. This proportion is similar to that between
gravitation and the strong force where gravitation is thought to be ~10-40 weaker than
the strong force. Gravitational attraction between two contiguous Schwarzschild
protons can easily accommodate both nucleon and quark confinement. In this picture,
we can treat “strong” gravity as the strong force. We calculate that two contiguous
Schwarzschild protons would rotate at c and have a period of 10-23s and a frequency of
1022 Hz which is characteristic of the strong force interaction time and a close
approximation of the gamma emission typically associated with nuclear decay. We
include a scaling law and find that the Schwarzschild proton falls near the least squares
trend line for organized matter. Using a semi-classical model, we find that a proton
charge orbiting at a proton radius at c generates a good approximation to the measured
anomalous magnetic moment."

There then follows a mathematical discourse showing how these calculations were made.
The paper is here, and I would greatly appreciate your considered discussion of it, as its results greatly contrast with what has been said so far. I thank you in advance for taking the time to offer your analysis, critique and insights.
Trying to find online critique of this paper has yeilded few results for me, with only the calculated figure of the mass/energy density inside the volume of the proton being a point of contention.

(bold added)

What award did it win?

In what relevant, peer-reviewed journal was this paper published (and when)?

The whole thing looks like crackpot nonsense, but maybe I have seriously misunderstood it ...

[Grahamshortuk]

“The Schwarzschild Proton,” received an award at the University of Liège, Belgium during the 9th International Conference CASYS'09 (Computing Anticipatory Systems).
Chosen by a panel of 11 peer reviewers, Haramein's paper won the prestigious "Best Paper Award" in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation.” This significant paper marks a new paradigm in the world of quantum theory, as it describes the nuclei of an atom as a mini black hole, where protons are attracted to each other by gravitation rather than some mysterious undefined “strong force.” This radical new view of the quantum world produces a unification of the forces and appropriately predicts measured values for the nucleon of atoms"
quoted from the lead scientists website.
As for publishing details, I have no idea. Found it via Google. Sorry cant help there.

I have found other forums discussing this but people invoke the use of the work "crackpot" but then fail to provide analysis of the paper. So I ask that we try to be objective and not get hurt by the way this jabbs at the Standard Model, and instead review it dispassionately.

[Cougar]

What award did it win?

Ha ha. When I saw that this was an "award-winning" paper, I was immediately skeptical. Not completely dismissive, but certainly skeptical. After a brief search on the author of that paper, apparently my skepticism was well placed. Here is another "claim" by that author:

A comet almost 2x the size of Jupiter (the largest planet in our solar system) recently passed through our solar system but was never reported on main stream media because the scientists and astrologists "thought we were toast". This comet, which Nissim [Nassim Haramein] believes was Nibiru, should have disrupted our solar system due to its mass and gravitational pull. Mercury should have been pulled into the sun while earth should have experienced tidal waves all over the planet. The comet was on track to hit the sun, but a huge sun flare emission veered the comet off course, as it traveled past the sun and out of our solar system. This was visible from the west coast in the early morning in February 2003. Two comets have gone by inside the orbit of Mercury into the sun.

Considering the mass and gravitational pull of these objects, "We shouldn't be here. We were given a second chance. We're floating in grace and 'somebody' is taking care of us." In a few days, Nibiru was out of our solar system. With a "comet" of this size, the gravitational force was enormous.

So a "solar flare emission" knocked an object twice the size of Jupiter off its orbital course? I suspect Haramein didn't do the math on that one.

[Strange]

I have found other forums discussing this but people invoke the use of the work "crackpot" but then fail to provide analysis of the paper. So I ask that we try to be objective and not get hurt by the way this jabbs at the Standard Model, and instead review it dispassionately.

That is not the reason people use the word crackpot. As evidence of that, you can find discussions here of some pretty way out ideas published by real scientists. People may find fault with the logic or the math, but won't dismiss it just because it is a new idea.

A comet almost 2x the size of Jupiter (the largest planet in our solar system) recently passed through our solar system but was never reported on main stream media because the scientists and astrologists "thought we were toast".

That is what forces people to use a word like "crackpot"

And "astrologists"?

[trinitree88]

Ha ha. When I saw that this was an "award-winning" paper, I was immediately skeptical. Not completely dismissive, but certainly skeptical. After a brief search on the author of that paper, apparently my skepticism was well placed. Here is another "claim" by that author:

A comet almost 2x the size of Jupiter (the largest planet in our solar system) recently passed through our solar system but was never reported on main stream media because the scientists and astrologists "thought we were toast". This comet, which Nissim [Nassim Haramein] believes was Nibiru, should have disrupted our solar system due to its mass and gravitational pull. Mercury should have been pulled into the sun while earth should have experienced tidal waves all over the planet. The comet was on track to hit the sun, but a huge sun flare emission veered the comet off course, as it traveled past the sun and out of our solar system. This was visible from the west coast in the early morning in February 2003. Two comets have gone by inside the orbit of Mercury into the sun.

Considering the mass and gravitational pull of these objects, "We shouldn't be here. We were given a second chance. We're floating in grace and 'somebody' is taking care of us." In a few days, Nibiru was out of our solar system. With a "comet" of this size, the gravitational force was enormous.

So a "solar flare emission" knocked an object twice the size of Jupiter off its orbital course? I suspect Haramein didn't do the math on that one.

Cougar. Agreed. It is still surprising to find so many people who feel the technological achievements of legions of aerospace engineers, astronomers, and physicists, have left us incapable of detecting such large objects. It's true, we get some genuine surprises, but they tend to be refinements of current models. It is also incorrect to refer to the staid "strong force" in nuclear binding, when it is more conventionally modeled as a leftover from the color force which binds the quarks in the nucleons themselves....(that's been around since the eighties). pete

[Nereid]

“The Schwarzschild Proton,” received an award at the University of Liège, Belgium during the 9th International Conference CASYS'09 (Computing Anticipatory Systems).

This seems an odd place for a paper on theoretical physics.

Chosen by a panel of 11 peer reviewers, Haramein's paper won the prestigious "Best Paper Award" in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation.” This significant paper marks a new paradigm in the world of quantum theory, as it describes the nuclei of an atom as a mini black hole, where protons are attracted to each other by gravitation rather than some mysterious undefined “strong force.” This radical new view of the quantum world produces a unification of the forces and appropriately predicts measured values for the nucleon of atoms"
quoted from the lead scientists website.

None of whom, so far as I can tell, seem to have much of a record in "Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation"!

As for publishing details, I have no idea. Found it via Google. Sorry cant help there.

Under BAUT's general policies that triggers a whole posse of red flags (if I can mix the odd metaphor or two).

If it's such a terrific idea, and developed as well as the review claims, it'd be in PhysRev (or similar), and be cited over a hundred times by now. The fact that it's not (apparently) likely means it's so, um, scientifically weak that no decent journal will touch it.

I have found other forums discussing this but people invoke the use of the work "crackpot" but then fail to provide analysis of the paper. So I ask that we try to be objective and not get hurt by the way this jabbs at the Standard Model, and instead review it dispassionately.

And, may I suggest, that you have the wrong forum for such a discussion?

Why not try JREF? Not only are such things allowed to be presented (unlike here, most likely), but there are lots and lots of really, really qualified (and smart!) people who will rip it shreds in a heartbeat (if that's what it deserves).

[loglo]

There is some reasonable looking discussion of the paper here. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

[Geo Kaplan]

“The Schwarzschild Proton,” received an award at the University of Liège, Belgium during the 9th International Conference CASYS'09 (Computing Anticipatory Systems).
Chosen by a panel of 11 peer reviewers, Haramein's paper won the prestigious "Best Paper Award" in the field of “Physics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Field Theory, and Gravitation.” This significant paper marks a new paradigm in the world of quantum theory, as it describes the nuclei of an atom as a mini black hole, where protons are attracted to each other by gravitation rather than some mysterious undefined “strong force.” This radical new view of the quantum world produces a unification of the forces and appropriately predicts measured values for the nucleon of atoms"
quoted from the lead scientists website.
As for publishing details, I have no idea. Found it via Google. Sorry cant help there.

I have found other forums discussing this but people invoke the use of the work "crackpot" but then fail to provide analysis of the paper. So I ask that we try to be objective and not get hurt by the way this jabbs at the Standard Model, and instead review it dispassionately.

The paper is a crackpot work, and that is a judgment based on objective reasoning. It is not an emotional response to "jabbs at the Standard Model."

What support is there for this view? Let's start with the "award," the certificate of which is prominently featured on the author's webpage. I'd never even heard of the conference before, but after a bit of Googling and discussion with my colleagues, it became clear that this was not a physics conference. It's largely attended by computer scientists. And the basis for the award is a popularity contest -- a vote by the attendees. As Nereid has already observed, that is manifestly not "peer review" in the ordinarily understood sense of the term. It is a sign of a crackpot to suggest that the work has been peer-reviewed (and, in this case, even honored).

But that's just one sign. What others do we have? Fortunately, loglo has already provided a link to an excellent analysis (http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/...ld-proton.html). Is that analysis "dispassionate?" Certainly, the irritation of the author comes through, but the analysis is well-reasoned. The "Schwarzchild proton" model is so completely brain-dead (by many, many orders of magnitude, and in multiple categories at that) as to invite derision. It's the sort of not-even-half-baked "theory" that should never even get published (except, maybe, as a "don'ts" example in a physics "dos and don'ts" list). The reaction has nothing to do with "jabbs." It has everything to do with making intellectually bankrupt claims.

[Cougar]

There is some reasonable looking discussion of the paper here. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Ah, exactly what Grahamshortuk was asking for. Very nice.

[Cougar]

The "Schwarzchild proton" model is so completely brain-dead... as to invite derision.

Yes, but of course, it's not just that the paper is flawed. It's that it is being put forward as if it is well grounded in science - when it is decidedly not.

As you say, loglo's link gives an excellent analysis of Haramein, and why it is important to recognize what this apparently "popular" YouTuber is up to....

It's important to be able to tell truth from falsehood - if we don't, then we lose sight of truth altogether. I don't like it when someone pretends to have insights into the laws of physics that all the scientists of the world are supposedly too dumb to have realised, but in fact has nothing but charisma and a silvery tongue....

I view this kind of deliberate and deceptive manipulation of his image to attract paying followers as a serious abuse of trust.... Nassim Haramein - Fraud or Sage?

[DrRocket]

(bold added)

What award did it win?

In what relevant, peer-reviewed journal was this paper published (and when)?

The whole thing looks like crackpot nonsense, but maybe I have seriously misunderstood it ...

No, you did not misunderstand. This piece of junk is one of the products of the "Resonance Project" -- carackpot central.

[Nereid]

I have been looking around the internet to research this and I have found an award winning paper that has the following as its introduction:

"We review our model of a proton that obeys the Schwarzschild condition. We
find that only a very small percentage (~10-39%) of the vacuum fluctuations available
within a proton volume need be cohered and converted to mass-energy in order for the
proton to meet the Schwarzschild condition. This proportion is similar to that between
gravitation and the strong force where gravitation is thought to be ~10-40 weaker than
the strong force. Gravitational attraction between two contiguous Schwarzschild
protons can easily accommodate both nucleon and quark confinement. In this picture,
we can treat “strong” gravity as the strong force. We calculate that two contiguous
Schwarzschild protons would rotate at c and have a period of 10-23s and a frequency of
1022 Hz which is characteristic of the strong force interaction time and a close
approximation of the gamma emission typically associated with nuclear decay. We
include a scaling law and find that the Schwarzschild proton falls near the least squares
trend line for organized matter. Using a semi-classical model, we find that a proton
charge orbiting at a proton radius at c generates a good approximation to the measured
anomalous magnetic moment."

There then follows a mathematical discourse showing how these calculations were made.
The paper is here, and I would greatly appreciate your considered discussion of it, as its results greatly contrast with what has been said so far. I thank you in advance for taking the time to offer your analysis, critique and insights.
Trying to find online critique of this paper has yeilded few results for me, with only the calculated figure of the mass/energy density inside the volume of the proton being a point of contention.

Other than its external features (academic conference, award), what was it about this that made you feel it had any scientific merit?

I'm curious for several reasons, one of which is how good do you think you are at critical thinking (not just about gravity and nuclei)?

For example, when you come across something like this, what sorts of things do you do to test the extent to which it is likely to be sound, scientifically?

[Strange]

There is some reasonable looking discussion of the paper here. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Excellent link. Thanks for finding that.

I particular like this quote:

It's because using mathematics is the only way to really see that the ideas you read in the popular science books actually work. If all you do is read the ideas in popular science books, you could easily think they're just ideas, and conclude that X might be just as valid. It simply doesn't work like that. It's unfortunate that the only way you can be convinced of this is if you 'do the math'.

(From On Being A Bit Horrid)

In the original posting X = "the ideas of some nutcase from Hawaii"; but in the context of the ATM forum here, it could be "your own ideas".

[Geo Kaplan]

Yes, but of course, it's not just that the paper is flawed. It's that it is being put forward as if it is well grounded in science - when it is decidedly not. {snip}

I view this kind of deliberate and deceptive manipulation of his image to attract paying followers as a serious abuse of trust....

Yes, I agree that it appears to be more than just "the usual crackpottery." There seems to be something more sinister going on.

[loglo]

Ah, exactly what Grahamshortuk was asking for. Very nice.

There is surprisingly little out there debunking Haramein, I'm not surprised Grahamshortuk couldn't simply dismiss him out of hand. Of course he may just feel that "Bob", and us, are just being a bit horrid, in which case I would refer him to Bob's excellent article, "On Being A Bit Horrid" in which I would especially advise to following the link on "liberated thinking", just coz its funny and you need a bit of light relief after that guff.

Seriously, we really need a "how to judge the scientific credibility of an author/paper when you don't have the scientific background" sticky. Its almost like unified field theories are becoming the next Nigerian email scam.

[Grahamshortuk]

You are assuming too much of me my friend. With limited education in physics I simply did not know if this paper had any good scientific merit. I recognised that it was proposing conclusions against the Standard model I learned doing A Level physics. And I remember being taught by my various teachers that all we were learning would inevitably be superceded by new lines of thought, new theories and new discoveries, just as Einstein revolutionised physics with relativity.
Thus, not having access to a Professor, I have spent some time trying to find a scientific critique of Haramein's paper, and thus shed the light of current physics onto the rest of Haramein's work.
Therefore I should like to thank the person who posted the link to the blog which comprehensively destroyed the paper.

So the answer to your question (I realise with sadness I am now required to defend myself for asking the question) about my critical thinking and how do I test things;... When I do not know, I ask. Which is kinda the point of this forum is it not?

[Strange]

So the answer to your question (I realise with sadness I am now required to defend myself for asking the question) about my critical thinking and how do I test things;... When I do not know, I ask. Which is kinda the point of this forum is it not?

You should never be afraid to ask - it is the point of this forum. I think what people really dislike is people who should ask but instead got straight to the ATM forum and say "I have a theory (which is mine) ..." You would never do that, would you

[Nereid]

You are assuming too much of me my friend. With limited education in physics I simply did not know if this paper had any good scientific merit. I recognised that it was proposing conclusions against the Standard model I learned doing A Level physics. And I remember being taught by my various teachers that all we were learning would inevitably be superceded by new lines of thought, new theories and new discoveries, just as Einstein revolutionised physics with relativity.

All well and good.

Thus, not having access to a Professor, I have spent some time trying to find a scientific critique of Haramein's paper, and thus shed the light of current physics onto the rest of Haramein's work.

Also good; a gold star for you for that effort.

Therefore I should like to thank the person who posted the link to the blog which comprehensively destroyed the paper.

So the answer to your question (I realise with sadness I am now required to defend myself for asking the question) about my critical thinking and how do I test things;... When I do not know, I ask. Which is kinda the point of this forum is it not?

I don't want you to misunderstand what I wrote.

I merely asked three questions; if you read into any of those questions any kind of rebuke, criticism, or implication that you should "defend yourself for asking a question", then I have failed to communicate what I meant. For avoidance of doubt, I meant no rebuke, no criticism; nor did I mean to imply that you should defend yourself for asking a question.

I'm still interested in answers to my questions, but of course you do not have to answer them.

One reason I'm interested is that, in my time here at BAUT (which is rather long), I've seen hundreds of things like the one you posted. To me, just a couple of minutes would suffice to strongly suggest that the content is, likely, um, less than scientifically sound.

And those couple of minutes would involve zero effort on the *content*; rather they'd be on the externalities, the background, the sort of thing which was well-covered in one of the blog entries there's a link to here (it's point 4). It goes something like this: unless you subscribe to some version of 'science/physics is giant conspiracy which vehemently suppresses scientifically sound left-field ideas', one of the first things you look for is where the ideas have been published. Granted, you may not know whether a particular journal is a dumping ground for crackpot nonsense or the world's leading physics journal (or anything in between), but if it's not published in a journal at all (e.g. appears only on someone's website), then before wasting any further time, you may consider asking "where has this paper been published?" (rather than "can you guys take a look at this really cool-looking paper?"). Now perhaps the cool thing is brand spanking new, and hasn't had time to be published yet. OK, so check the date; if it's older than a few months, it should have been published, somewhere.

Now to the content.

Of the major points made in the various debunking you've now (I hope) read, which do you think you could have thought of yourself? Maybe not worked out that it's so ridiculous, but had a 'that doesn't seem right' feeling?

[Grahamshortuk]

I must confess to being extremely new to this forum and I did make the mistake of posting a thread about an idea for gravitons which was then moved by a Mod to the ATM section where I was summarily devoured, and rightly so. Seems one cannot issue an idea that smells like ATM without accompanying it with a complete proffessional thesis or dissertation, which most users of this site havn't a chance of being capable of doing. Which makes me wonder what the point of ATM is. But never mind that now. Lesson learned. Fingers burnt.
I would propose an additional forum where the aim was to collaborate to see if a new idea could hold water, to provide a balance to the mauling of ATM and thus approach ideas from both sides.
Cheers guys. Over and Out.

[Grahamshortuk]

I did not have a "that doesn't seem right moment" as such. It was when the paper brought to mind a visual image of an atom with a black hole for a nucleus rather than a nice round mini billiard ball proton that I learned at A Level, that's when I thought "I want to check this to see what other physicists think of it, because if it's bollocks then I want to know. If it's at least a possibility then I want to know."
there are many things about the constantly updating standard model that I want to know. Some things just don't sit well with me, and somethings bring about an almost (hate to use the word) religious spiritual "urgh! No! That can't be right!". These are not scientific based reasons for doubt, but an explaination for my curiousity, nonetheless. This was such a moment as Harramein's double torus spinning recyling radiative/contractive model of the universe was to me a lovely model, and I simply wanted it to be true. Yet my mind wouldn't let me accept it without asking about it first.