The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Gravity doe's not exist.  (Read 721 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Gravity doe's not exist.
« on: 22/04/2016 19:57:04 »
Gravity doe's not exist, all things are buoyant relative to each other by the combination of positive and negative charge . 



 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity doe's not exist.
« Reply #1 on: 23/04/2016 02:27:33 »
Gravity doe's not exist, all things are buoyant relative to each other by the combination of positive and negative charge .
Your error regarding this assertion has been explained to you more times than I can count. Your problem is that you ignore the explanation and repeat your claim. That's the hallmark of pseudoscience.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity doe's not exist.
« Reply #2 on: 23/04/2016 07:18:01 »
Gravity doe's not exist, all things are buoyant relative to each other by the combination of positive and negative charge .
Your error regarding this assertion has been explained to you more times than I can count. Your problem is that you ignore the explanation and repeat your claim. That's the hallmark of pseudoscience.


You say I am error yet nobody knows what gravity actual is , so all the explanation in the world doe's not explain why I am wrong.   If +1 becomes +2 then things expand, if +1 becomes 0 then things contract, 





 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity doe's not exist.
« Reply #3 on: 24/04/2016 01:57:43 »
Quote from: Thebox
You say I am error yet nobody knows what gravity actual is , ..
What is that supposed to mean? I.e. what do you mean when you use the word "is"? If you're referring to the physical nature then you're wrong. If you're referring to the mechanism then you're still wrong.

Quote from: Thebox
.. all the explanation in the world doe's not explain why I am wrong.   If +1 becomes +2 then things expand, if +1 becomes 0 then things contract,
We've already explained to you time and time again why this is wrong. It's inconsistent with observation. What you're claiming to be true simply cannot be true. The electric force between two neutral bodies is zero. Take two massive sphere's a lead which have a total of zero charge on each. Then around the nucleus of each positive nucleus is a "cloud" of electrons smeared out over the space around it. The same is true for all atoms in each body. When the bodies are separated by a macroscopic amounts (e.g. the centers of two 1 inch diameter spherical balls of lead are separated by 1 inch). At these distances the atoms are not close enough to cause a polarization of the atoms in the other body. Therefore there is no electric force acting. However suppose there were. If that were the case then only electric dipoles would exist and only they would be interacting and they don't act like point charges and the force between then drops of as 1/r^3, not as 1/r^2 as do bodies interacting by the gravitational force. However let's say that they do interact as 1/r^2 and do act through the electric force. In that case you're claiming that we can't tell the difference between an electric field and a gravitational field which is absurd. A beam of electrons in a cathode ray tube will be deflected by an electric field so an electric field strong enough to cause the weight we observer on earth would cause the electron beam to deflect a great deal and yet there is no deflection to speak of. If the force was electric then bodies would fall at a rate which is proportional to their mass, which they don't.

That's the problem. You have these over simplistic ideas of gravity in your mind which bear no relationship to reality. No way can such forces hold planets in orbits around the sun and yet escape our detection.

There's a huge amount of other considerations too such as your theories inability to explain the experiments conducted which agreed with GR and not your idea such as the deflection of light rays by the Sun, the Shapiro time delay where the speed of light was shown to slow down in a gravitational field and the Pound-Rebka experiments which showed that time slows down in a gravitational field, i.e. they showed the gravitational redshift predicted by GR is a fact.
« Last Edit: 24/04/2016 02:02:25 by PmbPhy »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity doe's not exist.
« Reply #4 on: 24/04/2016 13:44:49 »

If you're referring to the mechanism then you're still wrong.


Well Pete, firstly addressing this issue, neither I or you know what the gravity mechanism is, so my assumptions are as valued as the next persons.


Secondly Pete I am saying Gravity is not gravity, it is electrodynamic buoyancy by a combination of all energy related forces.   



You state my ideas are inconsistent with observation, how can you derive such an conclusion?


Let us start a serious debate Pete, I will refrain from total speculation and keep to the facts you know of present?


I will start by discussing the expansion of metal when energy is added, do you agree that metal expands when heated and the entropy  of the metal energy increases?


added -

+1e+1e=+2e=>+

+2e-1e=+1e=<+








« Last Edit: 24/04/2016 16:29:21 by Thebox »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Gravity doe's not exist.
« Reply #4 on: 24/04/2016 13:44:49 »

 

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