The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Theory of gravity  (Read 865 times)

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Theory of gravity
« on: 22/06/2015 18:25:51 »
my theory is electrostatic induction force between atoms/masses/bodies causes gravity.

neutral atoms/matters has no net charge, but electrostatic induction between charges within atoms will end up a net attraction force, which is proportional to total charges within matters.

the fact that two separate magnets in free space will end up attract each other no matter pole directions is due to similar em induction. 

from Fg=G x m1m2/r^2 and Fe=Ke x q1q2/r^2, we see the similarity.

all we need to prove is m1=q1=total charges within, m1=q2=total charges within.

that part i already explained in my theory of atomic structure.



 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of gravity
« Reply #1 on: 22/06/2015 18:51:36 »
Quote from: jccc
my theory .....
This isn't a theory. It's mere speculation. You should learn what a theory is before you use that term again. A scientific theory is not an axiom/hypothesis, it's not a guess or a speculation, its not something that you merely think may be the case. It's none of that. It's a description of nature which is well tested through experiment and based on one or more postulates. Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics is an example of a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. Relativity, special and general, are theories. What you've stated here is merely wishful thinking. A thought. Something you think is true. To learn what a real theory is see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Quote
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.

Quote from: jccc
... is electrostatic induction force between atoms/masses/bodies causes gravity.
Oh sheesh. Here we go yet again. I've already explained why that's not a possible theory of gravity and you either couldn't grasp it or you ignored it. In either case you're just plain wrong. What you think simply cannot explain gravity because such a force causes the acceleration of a particle to depend on both charge and mass whereas a gravitational force doesn't depend on either.

Quote from: jccc
neutral atoms/matters has no net charge, but electrostatic induction between charges within atoms will end up a net attraction force, which is proportional to total charges within matters.
That's not a gravitational force. It's an electric force. Don't you understand the difference? And you're assuming that a gravitational field is generated by and acts only on atoms which isn't true. It acts on all particles. Even those that have no charge and are not made of particles having charge such as hadrons.

Quote from: jccc
the fact that two separate magnets in free space will end up attract each other no matter pole directions is due to similar em induction. 
That's caused by magnetic force, not a gravitational force.

Quote from: jccc
from Fg=G x m1m2/r^2 and Fe=Ke x q1q2/r^2, we see the similarity.
That only works for gravitational force. It cannot work in the way you described above.

Quote from: jccc
all we need to prove is m1=q1=total charges within, m1=q2=total charges within.
Impossible.

It's too bad that you refuse to learn physics and resort to posting nonsense like this all the time.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of gravity
« Reply #2 on: 22/06/2015 19:04:22 »
without induction, how 2 neutral hydrogen atoms form into H2?

without induction, all atoms are neutrally charged, how is matter able to form?

gravity is net electrostatic forces between all charges, same nature as em force. that's why gravity and em force have same speed, same strength to distance relation.

do you really think old theories are all correct? which part of my theory is wrong with logic?
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of gravity
« Reply #3 on: 22/06/2015 19:17:38 »
Quote from: jccc
without induction, how 2 neutral hydrogen atoms form into H2?
I NEVER even suggested that there's no such thing as electric induction. I said that it has nothing to do with gravity. So what does this question have to do with gravity? I'd explain the answer to you but you'd have to know quantum mechanics to understand it. Essentially the two nuclei of each H atom has a positive center. The two atoms together have one single potential function and the electrons in the outer shells form a covalent bond between the two atoms holding them together.

Quote from: jccc
without induction, all atoms are neutrally charged, how is matter able to form?
It has nothing to do with induction. Too bad you refuse to learn physics and obtain the knowledge to understand the correct answer.

<snipped nonsense>

You error in logic is that you're attempting to use classical reasoning when only quantum reasoning applies. What quantum reasoning is has been explained to you countless times so I won't explain it again since you won't understand it and I'm tired of explaining it.
 

Offline jccc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
    • View Profile
Re: Theory of gravity
« Reply #4 on: 29/06/2015 18:11:39 »
my theory is electrostatic induction force between atoms/masses/bodies causes gravity.

neutral atoms/matters has no net charge, but electrostatic induction between charges within atoms will end up a net attraction force, which is proportional to total charges within matters.

the fact that two separate magnets in free space will end up attract each other no matter pole directions is due to similar em induction. 

from Fg=G x m1m2/r^2 and Fe=Ke x q1q2/r^2, we see the similarity.

all we need to prove is m1=q1=total charges within, m1=q2=total charges within.

that part i already explained in my theory of atomic structure.

as i said earlier in my theory, 3 building blocks make up atoms.

proton carries 900 positive charges, electron carries 1 negative charge, enertron carries tiny negative charge, but it has more charge to volume ratio than electron.

a proton can never be observed by itself, proton is deep hidden within a dense enertron ball. atom is like earth, proton is the core, enertron is the dirt, electron is giant beach ball.

electron can never get inside of atom radius, that's why atoms are not compressible, no discharge within atom.

proton attracts -899 energtron and 1 electron to become neutral charged atom.

we can not detect enertron because it is too small and attracted by proton more strongly than electron.

when proton beams impact, in fact is proton/enertron balls impact, enertron balls explode, produce all kinds of em phenomena.

without charges, there is no force, there is no mass. cus you cannot measure mass without using force.

1 atomic mass equals to 1800 total charges, no matter the sign of the charge, that's why proton weight 1800 times electron weight but only carries 1 positive charge, the rest 899 positive charge is used up to balance -899 enertron ball.

a hydrogen atom is made of +900 charged proton surrounded by -899 charged enertron ball, add 1 electron on the outer sphere.

the atom has 2 force fields, positive field fp=ke x 900/r^2, negative field fe=ke x -900/r^2.

those positive and negative fields between atoms/matters interact/induction becomes bounding/gravitation.

now let's prove mass=total charge

1 neutron contains 1 proton and 1 electron, total charge 1800. equal to hydrogen atom total charge/mass.

all we need is an induction constant C* to convert Fg=G x m1m2/r^2 into Fe=Ke x q1q2/r^2.

C* x m=q, where m is mass, q is its equivalent induction charge carried.
« Last Edit: 29/06/2015 18:16:23 by jccc »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Theory of gravity
« Reply #4 on: 29/06/2015 18:11:39 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums