sci.physics.particle

On Mar 25, 1:01=A0pm, frankli...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > I suppose my first objection to all this would focus
> > upon the mass difference between the proton and
> > the electron. =A0Since a proton is 1836 times more
> > massive than an electron (and so an antielectron as
> > well), how can a proton be made of just three of
> > these, two positrons and an electron?
>
> Well, first, you would have to come up with a mechanism for mass. Just
> what is it about a proton that makes it 1836 times more massive? When
> it comes right down to it, it just means it takes 1836 times more

stronger <-> weihtier <-> smaller

> If the mass only depended on physical size, then you might expect that
> a proton would have to be 1836 times as large as an electron, but it
> doesn't need to be. It is the stickiness that also matters.

Compositeness also makes a mote bigger for the same mass, whereas not
makes smaller.

> My theory does extend to explain that the nucleus is not a ball of
> positrons and neutrons. It is actually a checkerboard alternating
> sequence of proton/electron/neutron. The electrons are bound in the
> nucleus when an atom is in the ground state. Therefore, there is no
> need for the strong nuclear force and the atom can be held together
> only by conventional electrostatic charges. See my paper:

Yet nuclei are fine if all of their el=E8ctr=F2ns are stripped off, as in
the RHIC. In deed, even a patent for nuclear waste remediation by van
de Graaff aknowleds thas the lifetime for radionuclides gets longer
without the negative charges, as they help to pull open the nucleus.
Very few el=E8ctr=F2ns sit at the nucleus, those in the s-block; the
others loiter and teeter about.

-Aut