[William McC (OP)]

Electrostatics is traditionally defined as the study of the behaviour of ‘charged particles’ that have been separated from each other. As the neutron and the neutrino do not have charge, it is primarily the study of electron and proton separation, although positrons and anti-protons can also figure.

The basic concept behind electrostatics is that oppositely charged particles, function together under the influence of an electrostatic field, being attracted or repelled according to an interaction between like with like charges and like with unlike charges.

So what role does kinetic energy have in the study of static electricity?
 
The link arises during the process of removing an electron from its host atom. It is a process which imparts kinetic energy to the extracted electrons in order to remove them from their atomic orbit around the nucleus.

The use of friction between two dissimilar materials, referred to as the ‘triboelectric effect’, provides an example of this input of kinetic energy, but once extracted, the electron does not show itself as having kinetic energy that is associated with the movement of the electron through space, but through an increase in the electron’s ‘static vibrational energy’.

In electrostatic experiments conducted in the lab, the electrons, once freed from their atom, can be physically transferred and stored upon a ‘non-conducting’ surface or alternatively, upon an insulated ‘conducting’ surface. The depositing of the electrons onto this storage medium brings the energised vibrating electrons into close contact with each other, but it is their individual vibrations, rather than their charge, which initially keeps them apart.

But as the numbers of electrons continue to stack up on the finite surface area of the storage medium, they begin to cramp each other’s space. The electrons cope with this by synchronising their vibrations to make the best use of the horizontal space available to them and storing newly arrived electrons on top of each other, when the surface area is fully utilised.
 
The deeper and denser that the layers of electrons become, the greater is their synchronised vibrational energy, until a critical energy level is reached, at which the 'vibrations' of the energised electrons are able to interact with the electrons of the atoms in the surrounding non-conducting medium.

This vibrational contact affects the electron pairings located in each atom’s outer orbit, causing the electron pair to be split apart and dispatching one of the electron pair into a higher energy state. Because both electrons remain as part of the atom, the atom is not ionised, but the division creates a free electron in the atom’s new outer orbit and this starts the temporary conversion of the non-conducting medium into a conducting one.

Repetitive quantum strikes of kinetic energy passing from the stored electrons into the non-conducting medium continues to separate paired electrons, with the process moving from molecule to molecule away from the source, albeit in the manner of a ‘random walk’.

Each ‘pair splitting’ event absorbs an input of vibrational energy from the electron store. But the distance that it travels through the non-conducting medium can fizzle out, if the driving force from the transmitted electron vibrations is depleted or siphoned off in another direction. This same cessation of ‘pair splitting’, also happens when the path of a ‘pair splitting’ process is impeded by an object, such as an earthed terminal or an object upon the earth itself and this causes the path to deliver its remaining vibrational energy onto that blocking object.
 
However, the ending of a 'pair splitting path' initiates a reversal of the process, whereby the energised outer electron of each ‘split pair’ is now able to fall back into its original orbital level, emitting a flash of visible light. This enables the split pair to re-join again and returns the medium back into its non-conducting state.
 
The traditional concept of the electron as having an associated ‘charge’ and being mediated by an ‘electrostatic field’, is not a requirement of this electrostatic ‘lightning strike’ phenomenon.
 
The concept of ‘static vibrational energy’ is also relevant in the field of electrodynamics, where traditionally the creation of an electric current in a conducting circuit is viewed as the result of the physical movement of charged electrons along a conducting wire under the influence of an electrostatic field.

The transport of an electric current around a conducting circuit by the means of ‘vibrating electrons’, is driven by the input of quantum units of kinetic energy, that are vibrated into the circuit by a generating source, whether it is a battery, a dynamo, mechanical friction or the sun’s radiant energy.

Each quantum input of energy is transmitted around the circuit using the conducting 'free electrons' as its vehicle. These free electrons are located in the outer orbit of every atom of the conducting circuit and together they provide a direct conduit through the lattice structure of the conducting wire.

Once the vibration from the input kinetic energy has been transmitted from one electron to the next in a sequential manner, the electrons in the circuit each return to their original state, enabling them to transmit the next quantum unit of vibrational kinetic energy. The voltage at any point upon the conducting circuit, is just a measurement of the kinetic energy that is being transported past that point.

These two phenomena from the fields of electrostatics and electrodynamics, which are in essence the same process of transmitting kinetic energy through a medium, are not underpinned by the existence of a ‘universal electric force field’ that mediates the interaction between charged particles, but are explained more simply by the ‘generation’, ‘storage’ and ‘transfer’ of kinetic energy.

No one has ever demonstrated unlike particles attracting, or even come up with any feasible theory for that premise. The reason is that there are no attraction forces in our universe. This was proven a century ago and no one ever disputed it with any sane explanation.

The French Scientist Du Fay had the notion that there were two types of particles of electricity, one positive and one negative. But Benjamin Franklin squashed that after great debate, and putting an end to English Children having to go to church bell towers to ward off lightning, with his lightning rod.

There is no proof of such a notion of two different particles attracting, no explanation that does not crumble into madness. So it still stands for those that enjoy the truth that all particles repel one another, under universal pressure. Which can be demonstrated. Electricity flows from an abundance of particles of electricity to a shortage of particles of electricity without exception. Even the mystical ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode) is nothing more than a blown capacitor emitting particles of electricity against the flow of the power supply that created them. Electricity from an ARC, like lightning is not an A to B flow of electricity. It is an A to B to C flow of electricity. The interesting difference between the two types of flows, is that an A to be B flow, flows only from A to B. While the A to B to C flow the ARC, lightning, can move to any location of lower voltage. The ARC is as close to a bomb as you can get, if it is not a bomb. The energy created at the point the ARC starts is at disintegration voltage, that means it can go just about anywhere. By disintegration voltage I mean the voltage as in a blasting cap that can cause otherwise non-explosive substances to explode. Asphalt can be made to explode with high voltage, much like a high explosive. As kids we made electrochemical detonators to blow up the streets. They were impressive. With only a couple grams we could detonate a three foot diameter area of asphalt roadway, three or four inches in depth, right down to the cement underneath. I am not suggesting this behavior in any way, looking back just holding them or making them was a bit foolish.

The lightning rod creates an area very high in voltage, the lightning, the ARC is repelled to another location of lesser abundance of particles of electricity, or sometimes it does not even strike the ground.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[chiralSPO]

No one has ever demonstrated unlike particles attracting, or even come up with any feasible theory for that premise. The reason is that there are no attraction forces in our universe. This was proven a century ago and no one ever disputed it with any sane explanation.

So, why do electrons and protons combine to form hydrogen atoms (accompanied by the release of energy), and why does it require energy to remove an electron from an atom?

[William McC (OP)]

No one has ever demonstrated unlike particles attracting, or even come up with any feasible theory for that premise. The reason is that there are no attraction forces in our universe. This was proven a century ago and no one ever disputed it with any sane explanation.

So, why do electrons and protons combine to form hydrogen atoms (accompanied by the release of energy), and why does it require energy to remove an electron from an atom?

I believe you are quoting the practiced rehearsed version of public education. I have never seen anything like that, I am before that became the accepted version of reality. I learned the atom of hydrogen as being a sphere or particles of electricity. That was created and maintained by particles of electricity that race from the far side of the universe to the other far side of the universe. These particles travel in a very straight line, compared to what we commonly refer to as a straight line. All elements are just structures of hydrogen atoms, it is the structure not the substance that gives an element its characteristics. The particles of electricity racing through matter represent by velocity where and what they just passed through. To bring us light, heat, x-rays, vibrations, and anything else we can perceive.

If you are familiar with atomic hydrogen welding popular almost a century ago, you know that hydrogen passed through an ARC an ARC which reaches temperatures as high as 35,000 degrees, or simulates those temperatures, transfers this heat to the siamese bonded hydrogen molecule H2, in doing so the siamese bond breaks. Now I consider the addition of 35,000 degrees to be the cause of this great almost unbelievable heat that is generated in atomic hydrogen welding. Even small setups using hydrogen can cut right through the best bank safes on earth like a hot knife through butter when used with more gas pressure.

But in no way or at anytime do I need "electrons changing orbits" "moving to higher energy states", taking a bus or doing anything but changing velocity to relay what they just passed through to where i want them to communicate it.

They did in fact outlaw this view of the atom in public schools, as it was the actual stuff that can turn anything on earth into a hydrogen bomb. In my school we learned how to turn just about any substance into a world bending weapon of mass destruction. Not to create weapons of mass destruction, rather to avoid accidentally creating them. As China just did with a couple of bags of calcium carbide and water from the Fire Department. Most in China probably did not know just how dangerous acetylene can be. Because our military used to be trained to use that substance to take out an entire nation if we were the victims of a first strike. So it was kept kind of quiet. As kids we fired cannons that used a couple grains of calcium carbide to create the explosion when mixed with water. I have been warning people for years it is only a matter of time before explosions nearing atomic explosions will be accidentally created because most are not aware of what they are working with anymore. I have made videos and communicated over the internet but most believe me to be some kind of violent terrorist. I can assure you if you are alive I am not a terrorist.

youtu.be/L0oDSDII-30

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[chiralSPO]

I believe you are quoting the practiced rehearsed version of public education. I have never seen anything like that, I am before that became the accepted version of reality. I learned the atom of hydrogen as being a sphere or particles of electricity.

If by particles of electricity, you mean protons and electrons, then yes.

That was created and maintained by particles of electricity that race from the far side of the universe to the other far side of the universe. These particles travel in a very straight line, compared to what we commonly refer to as a straight line. All elements are just structures of hydrogen atoms, it is the structure not the substance that gives an element its characteristics. The particles of electricity racing through matter represent by velocity where and what they just passed through. To bring us light, heat, x-rays, vibrations, and anything else we can perceive.

I'm not quite sure what this means, or what it has to do with anything...

If you are familiar with atomic hydrogen welding popular almost a century ago, you know that hydrogen passed through an ARC an ARC which reaches temperatures as high as 35,000 degrees, or simulates those temperatures, transfers this heat to the siamese bonded hydrogen molecule H2, in doing so the siamese bond breaks. Now I consider the addition of 35,000 degrees to be the cause of this great almost unbelievable heat that is generated in atomic hydrogen welding. Even small setups using hydrogen can cut right through the best bank safes on earth like a hot knife through butter when used with more gas pressure.

Yes, very hot hydrogen is... very hot. This has nothing to do with the atomic structure.

But in no way or at anytime do I need "electrons changing orbits" "moving to higher energy states", taking a bus or doing anything but changing velocity to relay what they just passed through to where i want them to communicate it.

No, not to describe arc-welding. But if you want to know where the UV and x-rays from arc welding come from, then yes, you do need to discuss energy levels and atomic structure.

They did in fact outlaw this view of the atom in public schools, as it was the actual stuff that can turn anything on earth into a hydrogen bomb. In my school we learned how to turn just about any substance into a world bending weapon of mass destruction. Not to create weapons of mass destruction, rather to avoid accidentally creating them.

In fact, they did NOT outlaw this view from public schools (seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?) But, do you mean by this that you think this (energy levels and electrons etc.) is real? By the way, an understanding of the electronic structure of atoms will *never* be the information most relevant to constructing hydrogen bombs (the nuclear structure of atoms would be the relevant bit), and no schoolchild would be able to make a hydrogen bomb, even if they fully understood all of the physics involved (it took more than a decade of work by thousands of scientists and engineers with the full support of the government, and using multiple factories to manage this feat).

As China just did with a couple of bags of calcium carbide and water from the Fire Department. Most in China probably did not know just how dangerous acetylene can be. Because our military used to be trained to use that substance to take out an entire nation if we were the victims of a first strike. So it was kept kind of quiet. As kids we fired cannons that used a couple grains of calcium carbide to create the explosion when mixed with water. I have been warning people for years it is only a matter of time before explosions nearing atomic explosions will be accidentally created because most are not aware of what they are working with anymore.

Most of the people who work with carbide and acetylene do (or should) know how dangerous it is. But the energy involved in a chemical explosion involving acetylene is still orders of magnitude smaller than even the smallest nuclear weapon. You would literally need tens of thousands of tons of acetylene (and at least twice as much oxygen) to generate the same blast energy as a nuclear warhead that could fit in a small automobile.

Please stop trying to spread such misinformation.

[William McC (OP)]

I believe you are quoting the practiced rehearsed version of public education. I have never seen anything like that, I am before that became the accepted version of reality. I learned the atom of hydrogen as being a sphere or particles of electricity.

If by particles of electricity, you mean protons and electrons, then yes.

That was created and maintained by particles of electricity that race from the far side of the universe to the other far side of the universe. These particles travel in a very straight line, compared to what we commonly refer to as a straight line. All elements are just structures of hydrogen atoms, it is the structure not the substance that gives an element its characteristics. The particles of electricity racing through matter represent by velocity where and what they just passed through. To bring us light, heat, x-rays, vibrations, and anything else we can perceive.

I'm not quite sure what this means, or what it has to do with anything...

If you are familiar with atomic hydrogen welding popular almost a century ago, you know that hydrogen passed through an ARC an ARC which reaches temperatures as high as 35,000 degrees, or simulates those temperatures, transfers this heat to the siamese bonded hydrogen molecule H2, in doing so the siamese bond breaks. Now I consider the addition of 35,000 degrees to be the cause of this great almost unbelievable heat that is generated in atomic hydrogen welding. Even small setups using hydrogen can cut right through the best bank safes on earth like a hot knife through butter when used with more gas pressure.

Yes, very hot hydrogen is... very hot. This has nothing to do with the atomic structure.

But in no way or at anytime do I need "electrons changing orbits" "moving to higher energy states", taking a bus or doing anything but changing velocity to relay what they just passed through to where i want them to communicate it.

No, not to describe arc-welding. But if you want to know where the UV and x-rays from arc welding come from, then yes, you do need to discuss energy levels and atomic structure.

They did in fact outlaw this view of the atom in public schools, as it was the actual stuff that can turn anything on earth into a hydrogen bomb. In my school we learned how to turn just about any substance into a world bending weapon of mass destruction. Not to create weapons of mass destruction, rather to avoid accidentally creating them.

In fact, they did NOT outlaw this view from public schools (seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?) But, do you mean by this that you think this (energy levels and electrons etc.) is real? By the way, an understanding of the electronic structure of atoms will *never* be the information most relevant to constructing hydrogen bombs (the nuclear structure of atoms would be the relevant bit), and no schoolchild would be able to make a hydrogen bomb, even if they fully understood all of the physics involved (it took more than a decade of work by thousands of scientists and engineers with the full support of the government, and using multiple factories to manage this feat).

As China just did with a couple of bags of calcium carbide and water from the Fire Department. Most in China probably did not know just how dangerous acetylene can be. Because our military used to be trained to use that substance to take out an entire nation if we were the victims of a first strike. So it was kept kind of quiet. As kids we fired cannons that used a couple grains of calcium carbide to create the explosion when mixed with water. I have been warning people for years it is only a matter of time before explosions nearing atomic explosions will be accidentally created because most are not aware of what they are working with anymore.

Most of the people who work with carbide and acetylene do (or should) know how dangerous it is. But the energy involved in a chemical explosion involving acetylene is still orders of magnitude smaller than even the smallest nuclear weapon. You would literally need tens of thousands of tons of acetylene (and at least twice as much oxygen) to generate the same blast energy as a nuclear warhead that could fit in a small automobile.

Please stop trying to spread such misinformation.

The only particle that travels in an electrical circuit is the particle of electricity, it only flows from an abundance to a shortage of particles of electricity. The proton (a sphere of particles of electricity, the hydrogen atom) makes up all matter and is the conductor of electricity. Electricity cannot flow without matter, and matter cannot exist without ambient radiation (High velocity particles of electricity).

They most certainly did outlaw the real atom that I was, and could be taught up till 1973. You can stand on a street corner and teach anything you like but by law in Federally funded schools or schools that receive tax breaks, all of them, you can no longer teach the real atom. The taxes are so high to run an institution that they must rely upon government tax breaks, grants or incentives.

The people in the Manhattan project were fools and almost destroyed the world by mistake, that accident was foretold by real Universal Scientists, not Fermi who almost destroyed the world. He was not a universal scientist at the time he did that insane experiment.

As far as the power of gaseous explosives you should consider the statement you made as being uneducated and dangerous. The power of well mixed fuel air explosives is not limited to the explosive itself, rather the size of the core can exponentially increase the effect of the blast. Because as I have been warning, acetylene, naphtha, and even gasoline are capable of rather remarkable explosions. Leveling or destroying areas equal to or greater than Hiroshima. Because they create rolling thunder. The ground literally liquifies for lack of a better term, sending what looks like waves in the ocean during a storm out great distances. This should be well known however I can assure you it is not.

People who handle propane are taught to wooden stake a leaking propane tanker, to seal it, or move back light their road flare and set the leaking tanker on fire immediately. To prevent it from wiping out whole towns. I have been told that is no longer being taught. So I guess when Akmed an Iraqi propane truck driver has a leaking truck and it takes out a small city, they will just claim he was a terrorist and move on.

That happened right here near my home. Thank God the driver did in fact light his vehicle on fire, it did burn for almost a day however it did not explode or create an explosive gas cloud. But I guess we should just believe you that gas explosions are not as bad as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Police are instructed at the scene of a badly leaking gasoline tanker to light road flares a certain distance away, because if the cloud reaches the flares it is already too large but not nearly as bad as it could be.

As far as calcium carbide goes a ton of calcium carbide and some water can wipe out a whole city, with the far reaching over pressure, and the rolling waves in the earths surface.

You seem fixated with playing word games rather than warning individuals of the actual dangers. You might have just said to some foolish terrorist that he needs fifty bags of calcium carbide and some water, that amount could possibly effect the whole planet, when one bag would probably be his wet dream. Conventional weapons can pale the power of atomic or nuclear weapons. Unless you increase the size of the core of the nuclear weapons.

That China accident thank God went off prematurely because there was an ignition source available, the out of control fire. If that reaction continued and then detonated the whole planet may have been effected. These accidents are just Godly warnings a last chance to change our ways and bring science (God) back into our lives.

We were taught as honor students, by the forth grade how to make Kelvin bombs as they were termed. So yes grade school children can carry out incredible feats of destruction if they wished to do so. I had my own acetylene torch when I was four. I could lead and tin solder, and solder with the higher temperature silver solders by then. I knew several fluxes, and most of the metals on earth. One day the teacher called on me because I was clowning around. She asked me very quickly for answers to math problems, after about ten questions answered correctly, she busted out laughing and just gave up. She did apologized then for asking me such difficult questions in an attempt to get me to answer incorrectly. It was different back then in my area. I have no idea what the rest of the world is doing or where they are going. To me the Zombie apocalypse happened in the sixties. We could have done anything in the sixties, except time travel which is of course impossible.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[William McC (OP)]

Who ever removed this post has pretty much just denied all reality on earth. Have fun where ever you live.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[William McC (OP)]

Here is a PDF about atomic hydrogen welding if anyone is interested in the history of it.

http://www.rockwelder.com/welding/AtomicWelding.pdf

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[CPT ArkAngel]

Einstein's theory of general relativity is interpreted in a context without a law of attraction. The interpretation is that the entire universe is pushing you toward the earth because earth's matter produces a contraction of spacetime. You just go along the flow of spacetime. The problem is you can interpret it in the other way around and have only a law of attraction. But when you think about the fact that we have an entire universe with lumps of matter, inertia and gravity, and positive and negative electric charges; it seems that it is more plausible that we have in fact two equal and opposite forces (action equal reaction) for a total of zero.

In an analogy with the holographic principle, you can suppose a 2D holographic sphere at the edge of the universe. Each quantum state of an elementary particle is entangled with a specific spot on the sphere. With this configuration, you may invent anything you like. So, for example, you have an electron and a positron separated by a small distance. Each charge quantum state are entangled on opposite sides of the holographic sphere at the edge of the universe. The smaller is the space between them, the more aligned are their entangled spots on the two opposite sides of the sphere. Then you can say it is the two opposite halves of the sphere that are pushing the positron and the electron toward each other. Then you would say it is a simpler model because there is just one law of repulsion and no law of attraction. The problem is you have to explain the sphere and the projection of all particles. In the end, both laws are still possible. A fixed holographic sphere is kinda unnatural and going against the relativity and no absolute spatial reference.

I found your explanations a bit cryptic and I would like you to take more time to explain what makes you think there is no law of attraction and how it works with only a repulsive law.

[GoC]

   You can develop a postulate based on observations but until you know a mechanism for the observations a law is a strong word. Even Relativity is just based on postulates because we do not know the mechanism. An argument between push or pull is futile until the mechanism is discovered. Physics by vote is an insane reliance on personal subjective interpretations. 

[William McC (OP)]

Einstein's theory of general relativity is interpreted in a context without a law of attraction. The interpretation is that the entire universe is pushing you toward the earth because earth's matter produces a contraction of spacetime. You just go along the flow of spacetime. The problem is you can interpret it in the other way around and have only a law of attraction. But when you think about the fact that we have an entire universe with lumps of matter, inertia and gravity, and positive and negative electric charges; it seems that it is more plausible that we have in fact two equal and opposite forces (action equal reaction) for a total of zero.

In an analogy with the holographic principle, you can suppose a 2D holographic sphere at the edge of the universe. Each quantum state of an elementary particle is entangled with a specific spot on the sphere. With this configuration, you may invent anything you like. So, for example, you have an electron and a positron separated by a small distance. Each charge quantum state are entangled on opposite sides of the holographic sphere at the edge of the universe. The smaller is the space between them, the more aligned are their entangled spots on the two opposite sides of the sphere. Then you can say it is the two opposite halves of the sphere that are pushing the positron and the electron toward each other. Then you would say it is a simpler model because there is just one law of repulsion and no law of attraction. The problem is you have to explain the sphere and the projection of all particles. In the end, both laws are still possible. A fixed holographic sphere is kinda unnatural and going against the relativity and no absolute spatial reference.

I found your explanations a bit cryptic and I would like you to take more time to explain what makes you think there is no law of attraction and how it works with only a repulsive law.

When has anyone discovered a particle of electricity that does not repel all other particles of electricity and all matter?

There are not two particles of electricity. Never have been. Unless you go back to Du Fay the French scientist that had the world fooled for a while. Then Benjamin Franklin had proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is just one particle of electricity, and a phenomena the ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode) which is just the electrical discharge of a blown capacitor, usually an air capacitor. Air capacitors are the devices that shut of your lights with two points and an air gap. When you go to open a circuit, shut it off by physically moving the two points in electrical contact with one another apart, you will if you look at the points in the dark see a white light. That light is from the air capacitor breaking down, because the points are still too close together for the air to stop the flow of electricity when the points are first opened. The air capacitor in a light switch alternately polarizes 120 times a second to stop the flow of electricity when the points are open.

But at no time do I need attraction forces which cannot be explained with any sanity whatsoever. And I certainly do not need two types of particles of electricity which cannot be explained with any sanity.



Sincerely,

William McCormick

[GoC]

    Whether you are pulled or pushed to the center of the Earth is always debatable. To exclude one position (pull) would suggest a knowledge of the mechanical reason for gravity. Can you enlighten us as to the mechanics involved?

[William McC (OP)]

    Whether you are pulled or pushed to the center of the Earth is always debatable. To exclude one position (pull) would suggest a knowledge of the mechanical reason for gravity. Can you enlighten us as to the mechanics involved?

Ambient radiation is passing through everything, everyone, everywhere within the universe. Undetected, part and parcel of our existence. Shut it off and the structures that we call atoms, matter, disappear disperse, quietly to there smallest part, the particle of electricity. There is no energy in matter. "Energy" is the perpetual motion of the ambient radiation. As an analogy, ambient radiation is the wind that moves a sail turned to harness the wind to move a sail boat, the current in the river that moves the logs.

When you charge something especially on one side, it tends to move. There is often an expansion and heating of air, so we tend to blame the expansion of the air for the movement. Which would seem like good observation good science. Until we find some phenomena that do not follow this set in stone understanding. During the excitation of materials that are about to explode, there is often a field created that acts very much like gravity, creating a push towards the bomb before it explodes. This one fascinated me, I stood near explosives many times, before during and after the explosion just to study it.

Since no one has ever offered an explanation of attraction ever, there is not even a theory of attraction, except one that says "I saw two magnets move towards one another and it looked like attraction." No one can explain two magnets moving towards one another with attraction forces, there is not even a poor theory for it. There is no such force in our universe.
There are solid particles though atoms, and particles of electricity, an atom of electricity, at least that is what we believe. And it seems demonstrable. If these particles did in fact repel one another, and that mechanism I cannot explain, except with the learned words "like particles repel", it would seem feasible that the motion of these particles could cause them to either crash into other particles pushing them or if they had this mystical repulsive force, they could just apply a pushing force to them.

My observations in life tell me that no particles ever touch one another and all particles and matter do repel one another at least from what I have learned and then experimented with.

The whole universe is under pressure, and the ambient radiation starts at one edge of the universe and like water traveling through a funnel is positively accelerated towards the "center" of the universe. After passing though matter, in the proximity of the center of the universe, it heads back to the edges of the universe much like sound out of an old victrola horn shaped speaker, where it stops amongst a sea of free non-moving particles of electricity, and heads back into the universe once more.

All the effects, light, heat, gravity, all require the surface of something to either relay the effect to, or create the effect by or at. If you build a black velvet lined box, and remove all the dust by smearing the box with glycerin, and allow sunlight into the box through a small metal tube. You will find the beam is invisible. There is no light coming into the box, if you look at the beam in the box from the side of the beam. Yet if you hang a white ping pong ball from a string and slowly lower it into the invisible beam of sunlight it suddenly glows with violence. It almost looks like it is glowing white hot. Yet the beam of light is invisible.

Gravity is much like that. There are invisible rays created by particles passing through everything. When a planet exists in the path of these rays these particles, it changes them, and the rays change the planet. The rays of ambient radiation, when presented with the surface of a planet, bottle neck at the surface. The volume of the earth is huge but the surface area is actually rather small if you compare it to say a basketball. The particles are entering the planet from every angle possible. That is a lot of different angles if you really take the time to demonstrate just some of the angles.

The bottle neck causes an abundance of particles of electricity, at the surface, which seems to be the reality. That abundance is what feeds the clouds until they reciprocate with a bolt of lighting. Space is short of particles of electricity. Once you create a bottle neck an abundance of particles of electricity, it causes a backup, meaning an area around the planet becomes abundant with particles of electricity, that slows down incoming particles of electricity even more. Coming from the planet, the solid planet the particles of electricity are accelerated, back to a more normal velocity. That is why those rays do not repel as much as the rays from above.

Very much like shooting an empty aluminum soda can with a low velocity round and a high velocity round. The lower velocity round that penetrates the can totally, knocks it off the table or moves it. The high velocity round does not even move the soda can. That is how the universe works from all my observations, schooling, and shared theories put forth by the guys that actually built everything we have today. As I mentioned the only thing I cannot explain is why like particles repel one another. Seems more like a rule of God, than an explainable science if you ask me. But it is the only variable that I cannot explain, with simple logic. Everything else lends itself to explanation using the universal pressure model.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

[GoC]

I have a theory of gravity attraction so you can no longer say you never heard of one. Energy of space c is dilated in mass (expanded by the gamma factor in relativity) by moving the electrons in mass. The center of mass is the most dilated as we understand by atomic clocks tick rate slowing in the center of mass compared to the surface of mass. Your measuring stick expands and the tick rate slows to measure the same speed of light in a vacuum. Mass is attracted to the lowest energy state of space which is the center of gravity. Your push theory has no mechanical cause of direction to the center of mass.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

I have a theory of gravity attraction so you can no longer say you never heard of one. Energy of space c is dilated in mass (expanded by the gamma factor in relativity) by moving the electrons in mass. The center of mass is the most dilated as we understand by atomic clocks tick rate slowing in the center of mass compared to the surface of mass. Your measuring stick expands and the tick rate slows to measure the same speed of light in a vacuum. Mass is attracted to the lowest energy state of space which is the center of gravity. Your push theory has no mechanical cause of direction to the center of mass.

I agree with you, but to discart the possibility of push is kind of radical, we still not sure on how the heliosphere interacts with space, if our solar system is inside something like a bubble on space, holded and provided by the sun an its solar winds... Also we are not sure about big bang, I consider the big bang as any ordinary supernova in highter scale... Most of us fail to ignore that the expansion of something, as long as it is still happening, at the same time, increase the bounds in lower scale, what I mean is, nothing expands from insideout without gradualy re-compresses itself from outside in...
 There is a 50-50 chance that both of your are correct, as this far I'll stick with your explanation cause science was able to explain, but could be more than one factor leading to gravity, in parallel...