Expert: Steve Nelson - 6/12/2010

Question
QUESTION: Steven; All matter has mass density.The mass (0.071 g/l) of Hydrogen however is to small (light)to be attracted by Earth's gravity as is Helium,lithium, etc., etc. The proof of this is, Earth containes 00.0000% Hydrogen because its gravity is to weak to hold it. That's why hydrocarbons are covered with a "blanket" of Nitrogen to hold down (impede)the "heavier" chemicals "spirits" from evaporation.The lighter gas (Hydrogen)is like a blanket around our atmosphere.Submit one singel example of Earth's gravity affecting Hydrogen gas BEFORE contridicting these facts. Respectfuly Angelo

ANSWER: No, if you measure the Earth's atmosphere in a mass spectrometer it does not contain 00.0000% hydrogen.  It contains 0.0005% hydrogen, this is a measured quantity, directly contradicting your "facts."  Measure it, if you have a mass spec capable of doing so as we do here.  That is fact, your assumption of 0.0000% is assumption.  Hydrogen isn't too light to be attracted by Earth's gravity, it's just lighter than air and on *average* the molecules slowly escape the atmosphere.  Average does not mean total, the molecules are still in the atmosphere as they are formed.

You can measure gravitation affecting hydrogen quite accurately in an atom interferometer, and anti-hydrogen for that matter.  I have friends working quite hard on the latter problem (getting slow beams of anti-hydrogen) of measuring the gravitational acceleration of anti-hydrogen to 4 or 5 decimal places in order to better understand the universe and the true nature of matter...good scientists with equipment and measurements who have dedicated their lives to the subject, not crackpots.  The matter density of hydrogen is well-established, it has mass and therefore gravitation affect it.  That is physics.  Your statements aren't "heresy," per se, they're just... really uninformed.  You give a mass density and forget that buoyant forces exist.  Go study Archimedes' principle and actual physics, reconsider the scale of the ridiculousness (in terms of numbers, like I put forth in my last reply with references you requested, not conjecture and speculation) of the scale of what you propose and tell me how there's enough matter density in empty space for hydrogen to "blanket" anything in our atmosphere.  Calculate it the way I did.  Anything quantitative, really...refute well-established physics calculations like that of the adiabatic lapse rate and the fact that we have satellites orbiting the Earth without drag like they would have if there was a "blanket" of hydrogen up there (they'd be burning up).  These are irrefutable facts, satellites orbit at 7 kilometers/sec where you say there's a gas.  If you can explain that one, then I'll bother listening if you reply.

---

P.S. My name is spelled Stephen, not Steven.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Dear Colleague; Air Liquid, a respected gas producer, has inadvertently disproven the Accretion Theory in publishing: Gas Encyclopedia: The Book By: Air Liquid, Edward Elsevier. The book states “Earth’s gravity is too weak to hold (attract) Hydrogen, Helium, Freon, Lithium, Boron Etc. gas down” and as proof, their GC/MS readings found 00.0000% Hydrogen in Earth’s atmosphere. The book directly contradicts the theory, which implies all objects with mass density and molecular, atomic, or volumetric weight can be attracted by (Earth’s) gravity as is being taught, but is simply not correct. Is there another explanation for these facts and the many unanswered questions e.g. where did water, atmosphere and gravity stronger enough to attract (hold and mold) gas and dust into our Solar System, originate?  Why were the computer simulations using the Accretion Model unsuccessful in duplicating the formation of our solar system beyond Saturn, after trying every possible combination?  These questions and many more, further undermined the credibility of the Accretion Theory and of the Astronomers teaching it. This overwhelming evidence leaves the improvable Accretion Theory with very few allies. A logical and provable alternative Heliocentric Model is www.aptheory.info it explains where water, atmosphere, gravity and the planets originated and discards quantum gravity for a provable energy source, the Solar Winds. Comments welcome. Sincerely,   Angelo Pettolino Author: www.aptheory.info

Answer
Wow, you're back!  Fantastic!  I had a talk with scientists at Air Liquide (it has an e at the end of the company name, it's French), who had a good long laugh at the notion that the atmosphere contained absolutely no hydrogen, simply from the thermal dissociation of water vapor alone that's impossible.  That's not theory, we see it when hydrogen diffuses through the metal walls of our vacuum chambers, in high-vacuum applications it's the main atmospheric species.  We take samples and measure it to be there.  You either have the wrong number of zeroes in your reference or I do, but the hydrogen is there.  You can't dissociate water thermally (veeeeery basic and standard physics and chemistry, look up the definition of pH and figure the hydrogen atoms free in regular water...same thing happens in water vapor) and not get hydrogen, and if you think water vapor isn't in our atmosphere then you've never seen these little (really massive, actually) things called clouds.  It's there, it's measured to be there, and it cannot instantaneously vanish from its source once there.

Quantum gravity, since you mention it, is not a formed theory.  People are trying to formulate theories of quantum gravity but no one has a successful one.  Leave that to the big boys.  The accretion theory of the solar system doesn't have "few allies," and I've been to your website many times.  It has many allies, they're called "the astronomy community and everyone close to them."  I got past the "ice mountains" thing, and about the time I got to this sentence:

"When the liquids made contact with the molten solar elements the first cataclysmic galvano/molten eruption occurred  and the breached liquid and matter reduced to their sub-atomic state of quarks, neutrinos and leptons (Galvani’s Law)."

I had a good long moment of What The Heck Does That Even Mean?  It sure isn't physics, my friend.  I kept reading, but you really don't want me to quote some of the rest of Earth forming from "drops" from the Sun and so forth, astronomers are having a good laugh at your expense right now.  Right now, in the book on physics crackpots I'm writing, you're second only to the antimatter comet guy ( http://www.energyusa.net/ ) for top slot as rock star crackpot.  You might actually beat him, but read his work to find just how far off the science rails you've gone.

I'm not spewing vitriol or anger here, don't get me wrong.  I'm pointing out that your theory is completely and totally incorrect.  The second best thing about a good scientist is their ability to push an unpopular theory in the face of opposition.  How long did it take you to hunt up one little reference to refute me when I had ten others if I needed behind me?  A long time before you replied to my last message.  The best thing about a good scientist?  The ability to accept the BEST available data and accept a new theory.  A lesson I learned the hard way...long story...