Article reference:

Gravity and the Nature of the Chemical Bond?

Paul Rowe has sent a short article that I would like to post here.

Some articles by Rowe posted previously:

A History of Dark Matter?

Controlled Transmutation of Elements Under Surprisingly Mild Conditions?

Hydrogen From Space - The Aether 'Comes Alive'

So here is his latest..

Gravity and the Nature of the Chemical Bond? Part I


Sepp Hasslberger has included several of my articles on his blog. Most of them propose that knowable space is not a void but rather, a concentrated matrix of protons and electrons (possibly Bose-Einstein condensed hydrogen and/or the ether of classical physics). The easiest to read is, "A History of Dark Matter?" The most difficult to follow is a too long-too weird play, "The Fall and Rise of the House of Cards".

Both attempt to give simple mechanisms for many observed phenomena, including:

The magnetic and dielectric properties of space required by Maxwell's wave equations.

The wave and particle natures of light.

The results of Michelson and Morley's interferometer experiments.

The present article tries to explain gravity based on the same assumption.

- - -


Addition of the masses of any material's protons and neutrons yields an extremely close estimate of the mass of that material. If one assumes that a neutron is a combination of a proton and an electron, the mass of any material is very close to the masses of the protons it contains. This led me to suspect there is an attraction between protons that becomes dominant when the electrical forces of the protons are cancelled by electrons. Could this force be gravity?

Lord Rutherford's group passed alpha particles (helium nuclei) through gold leaf and based on scattering of the alpha particles, concluded that that the nucleus of gold was extremely tiny compared to the spaces between the gold nuclei in the gold leaf. More recent experiments indicate that the diameter of any nucleus is about 1/10000 times the diameter of its atom.

Since a nucleus contains protons and electrons, their diameters are, likely, smaller than that of all nuclei, with the possible exception of hydrogen.

Bose-Einstein condensed atoms are believed to have zero viscosity. Condensates of elements heavier than hydrogen (lithium, sodium and rubidium) transfer light at slower velocities than space. Bose-Einstein condensed hydrogen might be expected to transfer light much faster than condensates of heavier atoms.

The distance between nuclei of solids and liquids are vast gaps to Bose-Einstein condensed hydrogen. Any material would be expected to move through the proposed matrix with no resistance. A sieve moves through water similarly, but with some resistance.

Picture a nucleus as a positively charged sphere. Such a sphere in the proposed matrix would attract electrons of the matrix and repel protons of the matrix. Since the atom is electrically neutral the distortion of the matrix must balance the charge of the nucleus. If so, the exterior of the atom has a positive charge. Perhaps the distorted matrix in the vicinity of the nucleus is required to stabilize the nucleus.

Now picture two atoms as they approach each other, through the matrix. If protons attract each other, that attraction will dominate, until the positive outer portions of the atoms are involved. At some distance, the attraction of the protons balances the repulsion of the positive outer surfaces. Could this define the actual bond distance? If so, the structure of chemical compounds may depend greatly on gravitational attraction.

If alpha particles are helium nuclei surrounded by the proposed matrix, they should affect the matrix to the same distance as a helium nucleus and should be scattered much differently than observed by Lord Rutherord, unless the matrix adapts to a moving nucleus. If the matrix has no viscosity, any moving nucleus may pass through the matrix much as a fish moves through water. That is, the matrix may adapt to the nucleus as the nucleus moves through it. This is consistent with Rutherford's observations.


The reason for Einstein's 'Principle of Equivalence' or why you cannot discern gravity from an acceleration of 32 feet per second per second.

It's quite different from what most think!

(click link below)


If magnetic force is derived from the electron spin then can gravity be derived from the quark spin?

Implications are the strong force is derived from the quark spin.

Is gravity a bit of strong force leakage?

Better read this:

Not Quite Everything for a Theory of Everything

(click link)



We may have taken a wrong turn in science.

Einstein's Biggest Blunder - - Wasn't??

a bit more light about it

(click link)