The Fundamental Forces

[silvanelf]

My understanding is all forces are related to square of distance....

The electrostatic and gravitational interactions certainly are. The absence of a similar formulation for the strong and weak forces is one of the nails in the coffin of these concepts for me.

The concepts of the strong and weak nuclear forces are invalid because they don't follow the inverse-square law? That's a strange claim -- it's like saying that abstract concepts are more important than experimental facts.

[silvanelf]

One thing I haven't mentioned here is the Rutherford model of the nucleus where there are no neutrons, just protons and electrons. I think this was dismissed due to theoretical objections raised by Pauli although I don't know the details.

Rutherford proposed his atomic model in 1911, the neutron was discovered later in 1932.
Here is a short description of Rutherford's model including its limitations:
"Rutherford’s Model of an Atom"
https://www.toppr.com/guides/chemistry/ ... f-an-atom/

[silvanelf]

I haven't seen evidence that neutrons actually exist inside the nucleus. Unstable nuclei hardly ever emit neutrons. They generally shed alpha particles, electrons or positrons.

The quote below about neutron emission should answer your objection.

Neutron emission is a mode of radioactive decay in which one or more neutrons are ejected from a nucleus. It occurs in the most neutron-rich/proton-deficient nucleides, and also from excited states of other nucleides as in photoneutron emission and beta-delayed neutron emission.

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_emission

Given this, why couldn't a neutron comprise a proton and an electron with a mutual offset between their spin axes of 60 degrees? Did all the QM geniuses of the 1920s really overlook this possibility? Is it because vector matrices are mathematical symbols and they forgot to relate their maths to any physical reality (the QM problem again)?

The angular momentum conservation doesn't work and the kinetic energy of the decay particles doesn't add up either without the neutrino -- actually it's an anti-neutrino.

[silvanelf]

Anyway, I´m pretty sure we can rule out all the gravitational ideas.

No, you cannot.
Mainstream physics prefers to postulate "missing matter" while it ignores the other possibility: modifying the laws of gravity. MOND aka Modified Newtonian dynamics does exactly that -- with great success. But MOND is just "another gravitational idea."
On the other hand, I've never seen an elaborate theory of electric gravity apart from some ideas at an early stage.