Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Kartazion on 07/12/2021 03:21:30
-
Hello,
In this thought experiment the gravity would give the maximum amplitude to the electric field to the correlate matter. In other words the gravitational field gives by retraction the amplitude to the electric field which affects the atom in its position at rest. If kinetic energy is produced (e.g. temperature), then the atom escapes this gravity. At rest the atoms are stacked on top of each other.
What do you think?
-
What do you think?
I think it's meaningless.
-
I think it's meaningless.
Indeed there is a droll controversy on it.
Can a balance of electric and gravitational forces be achieved? Remark to "Retraction: Conservative relativity principle and energy-momentum conservation in a superimposed gravitational and electric field" We explain our strong disagreement with the statement about "several scientific errors" in our paper [arXiv:1407.6619] and highlight the validity of our approach, which had been already confirmed in the well-known experiments by Millikan. (https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.09517)
* Millikan oil-drop experiment --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment
[1] The Unified Theory - Electricity, Magnetism, Gravity and Mechanics "In order to unify the gravity field and the electric field a relation between the gravity and the electricity must be defined. ... Since electricity is the density variation of the gravity, ..." --> https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9908024v1
-
Can a balance of electric and gravitational forces be achieved?
Yes.
I am sat on a chair, the forces that hold the chair together and thereby hold me up are essentially electrical.
Anyway, this is what the word usually means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retractor_(medical)
What are you trying to use it for?
-
What are you trying to use it for?
Sorry. I meant retraction. Please, can a moderator correct my title? Thank you.
-
What do you think?
I think this is another example of you coming up with an incorrect conjecture based on ignorance of physics and science in general.
-
I think this is another example of you coming up with an incorrect conjecture based on ignorance of physics and science in general.
You welcome.
Yes.
I am sat on a chair, the forces that hold the chair together and thereby hold me up are essentially electrical.
Can you confirm that chemical bonding is the physical phenomenon that binds atoms together by exchanging or sharing one or more electrons by electrostatic forces? Thanks.
-
Wholesale and without going into detail:
If electrostatics hold atoms together, then the gravitational field envelops the earth's electric field, like a tarp ar a sheet over the head and the body. It suffices with energy to be able to deform this envelope in its upward potential energy (amplitude), in the opposite direction to the gravity vector ; Or by moving under this envelope without deforming it in its potential energy by sliding underneath.
-
What are you trying to use it for?
Sorry. I meant retraction. Please, can a moderator correct my title? Thank you.
That really didn't help.
" Gravity is a Retraction pulling back of the Electric Field"
is still meaningless.
What are you using the word to mean?
-
If electrostatics hold atoms together, then the gravitational field envelops the earth's electric field,
The Earth barely has an electric field.
Gravity still works inside a faraday cage.
None of your ideas is making any sense.
-
What are you using the word to mean?
It means a reduction of the area.
The Earth barely has an electric field.
It corresponds to the quantity of matter. Be the air. More matter you have, more field you will have.
Gravity still works inside a faraday cage.
Fortunately. This is why you always stay on the floor when you are inside.
None of your ideas is making any sense.
Possible.
-
It means a reduction of the area.
No, it doesn't, but since the reach of an electric field is infinite, the point is moot.
It corresponds to the quantity of matter.
No the field "corresponds" to the net charge.
Be the air.
What are you smoking?
More matter you have, more field you will have.
No
The electric field round a proton is the same as the one round an electron, even though it's a couple of thousand times less matter.
Possible.
There's really no doubt about this.
this is another example of you coming up with an incorrect conjecture based on ignorance of physics and science in general.
You should stop + learn some science, rather than cluttering up this site with rubbish.
-
this is another example of you coming up with an incorrect conjecture based on ignorance of physics and science in general.
You should stop + learn some science, rather than cluttering up this site with rubbish.
Why do you react like this when it comes to just chatting?
-
The well known electrogravitics is claimed to be an unconventional type of effect or anti-gravity. Ok. But it's not worth reacting like that.
-
well known electrogravitics is
wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics#Criticismthis is another example of you coming up with an incorrect conjecture based on ignorance of physics and science in general.
You should stop + learn some science, rather than cluttering up this site with rubbish.
Why do you react like this when it comes to just chatting?
Because this is a discussion forum, not a chat forum.
Why are you so determined to be wrong?
-
well known electrogravitics is
wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics#Criticism
I haven't talked about it before because electrogravitics is an anti-gravity force created by an electric field's effect on a mass. I don't agree with this statement and have learned that gravity is always and only attractive. But... see next message to come...
Because this is a discussion forum, not a chat forum.
In this context, chatting or discus is the same thing, isn't it?
Why are you so determined to be wrong?
Wrong about what?
-
In this context, chatting or discus is the same thing, isn't it?
No.
For a start, that's why there's a "just chat" section.
Wrong about what?
Essentially everything you posted.
-
Essentially everything you posted.
I don't believe you.
-
Essentially everything you posted.
I don't believe you.
You say that as if, somehow, it's just me.
I think this is another example of you coming up with an incorrect conjecture based on ignorance of physics and science in general.
-
In this context, chatting or discus is the same thing, isn't it?
This is a science forum. If you want to smoke some dope and make up stuff with your pals, that's fine, but it is not ok to put this garbage on a science site. People come here because they are interested in science not made up crap.
-
You say that as if, somehow, it's just me.
Origin is unbelievable too. He still hasn't answered me here (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82710.msg662542#msg662542). You both contradict each other. It's funny to see how I tangled you.
In this context, chatting or discus is the same thing, isn't it?
This is a science forum. If you want to smoke some dope and make up stuff with your pals, that's fine, but it is not ok to put this garbage on a science site.
We are in the New Theories section. I can even talk about methaphysics if I want.
People come here because they are interested in science not made up crap.
Yes they are interested by the new theories if they comes here.
So I don't see where the problem is. I have an explanation for all the points I put forward.
-
You both contradict each other.
Where?
It's funny to see how I tangled you.
No, you have tangled yourself.
Yes they are interested by the new theories
And you do not have a theory.
You just have nonsense.
You might be better off if you learn what a theory is
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
-
So I don't see where the problem is.
Too right.
I have an explanation for all the points I put forward.
Is the explanation that you are a fool.
-
I understand why. You must have some action at Tesla.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ADynamic_theory_of_gravity#DON'T_DELETE_IT!_TOO_MUCH_OF_TESLA'S_HISTORY_IS_ALREADY_LOST!!
Because everything disappears step by step.
-
We are in the New Theories section. I can even talk about methaphysics if I want.
In other words it is not science. You are just making up pseudoscience crap based on your ignorance of science. It is not interesting it just sad and a waste of bandwidth.
-
You both contradict each other. It's funny to see how I tangled you.
The only tangle is trying to figure out which is the bigger problem; the language barrier or your ignorance. I think your ignorance is the biggest issue but the language barrier is not helping the situation!
-
One consideration left out by standard model science is the electron is an elementary particle with mass and negative charge. The elementary particle observation implies a type of unified force that integrates mass and negative charge to create a single elementary particle. Gravity in this case, should have an impact on the mass side of the equilibrium, thereby altering the state of the negative charge via the connected unified force.
A good example of this was that metallic water was assumed to exist only at extreme conditions such as found in the core of Jupiter. However experiments were able to create metallic water in the lab at conditions closer to that of the core of the earth. The unified force made the difference. The standard models left this out so they could not anticipate it.
The unified force between charge and mass also explains why electrons will annihilate with positrons but cannot close the deal with protons even though both have positive charges. The positron is also an elementary particle and it too uses the unified force with its positive charge. The proton is not an elementary particle so the state of its positive charge, is not connected to the unified force. The behavior of the charges will be different with only the two unified force particles able to close the deal; annihilate all charge, remove all space requirement and itv off energy, even under mild conditions.
-
The unified force between charge and mass also explains why electrons will annihilate with positrons but cannot close the deal with protons even though both have positive charges. The positron is also an elementary particle and it too uses the unified force with its positive charge. The proton is not an elementary particle so the state of its positive charge, is not connected to the unified force. The behavior of the charges will be different with only the two unified force particles able to close the deal; annihilate all charge, remove all space requirement and itv off energy, even under mild conditions.
Why do you like to make up silly stuff and then share it on line. Do you somehow think your flights of fancy impress anyone, it is embarrassing to watch you display your ignorance.
-
I understand why. You must have some action at Tesla.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ADynamic_theory_of_gravity#DON'T_DELETE_IT!_TOO_MUCH_OF_TESLA'S_HISTORY_IS_ALREADY_LOST!!
Because everything disappears step by step.
Did you post that in the wrong thread?
-
One consideration left out by standard model science is the electron is an elementary particle with mass and negative charge. The elementary particle observation implies a type of unified force that integrates mass and negative charge to create a single elementary particle. Gravity in this case, should have an impact on the mass side of the equilibrium, thereby altering the state of the negative charge via the connected unified force.
A good example of this was that metallic water was assumed to exist only at extreme conditions such as found in the core of Jupiter. However experiments were able to create metallic water in the lab at conditions closer to that of the core of the earth. The unified force made the difference. The standard models left this out so they could not anticipate it.
The unified force between charge and mass also explains why electrons will annihilate with positrons but cannot close the deal with protons even though both have positive charges. The positron is also an elementary particle and it too uses the unified force with its positive charge. The proton is not an elementary particle so the state of its positive charge, is not connected to the unified force. The behavior of the charges will be different with only the two unified force particles able to close the deal; annihilate all charge, remove all space requirement and itv off energy, even under mild conditions.
[ Invalid Attachment ]