[Kryptid]

I think it does demonstrate the model and disagree with your disagreement on the physical facts and interpretation of the results.

It does no such thing. One thing you would need to do is demonstrate mathematically that the strength of attraction between two neutral objects matches the measured strength of gravity between the same two objects. If it turns out that your model predicts a different strength of attraction between neutral objects than that of gravity, then that would be a falsification of your model.

Do you agree?

1) The balloons atoms in a stable state remain electrically neutral

Define "stable state".

2) The balloons atoms in an excited state create a positive or negative electrostatic charge

No. That's not what the word "excited" means in atomic physics.

3) The grounds and walls atoms in a steady state remain electrically Neutral

Define "steady state".

4)  The balloons atoms consist of a negative and a positive charge

Yes.

5)  The balloons atoms negative charge is attracted to the grounds positive charge

No, because any such attraction is cancelled out by repulsion.

6) The balloons atoms positive charge is attracted to the negative charge of the ground

No, because any such attraction is cancelled out by repulsion.

7)  When the balloons atoms are in a state of excitement and become negative or positive electrostatic charged , the balloon can overcome the affects of the gravitation of the ground by being  more attracted to the gravitation of the wall.

No.

[PmbPhy]

Surely I deserve some credit for this one?

Hardly. In the first place stating something as if it were true is nothing more than idle talk. An this case you never explain what an n-field is. In the second place its already been proposed and published.

There are no particles, there are only fields by Art Hobson, Am. J. Phys. 81 (3), March 2013, 211-223

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4789885

You can download and read it from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

[guest39538]

Define "steady state".

Equal loss to gain

No, because any such attraction is cancelled out by repulsion

Yes because the attraction is cancelled out by the repulsion when the object hits the ground .  An object is not sucked into the ground or the wall.    The ground and wall pushes back.   

[guest39538]

Surely I deserve some credit for this one?

Hardly. In the first place stating something as if it were true is nothing more than idle talk. An this case you never explain what an n-field is. In the second place its already been proposed and published.

There are no particles, there are only fields by Art Hobson, Am. J. Phys. 81 (3), March 2013, 211-223

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1119/1.4789885

You can download and read it from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.

Are the fundamental constituents fields or particles?

They are field particles in my model.

[Kryptid]

Equal loss to gain

Loss and gain of what?

Yes because the attraction is cancelled out by the repulsion when the object hits the ground .  An object is not sucked into the ground or the wall.    The ground and wall pushes back.

So you're saying that the attraction between electrons/protons in two neutral objects is stronger than the repulsion between electrons/electrons and protons/protons in those same two neutral objects? That's the only way you can have a net attraction.

[PmbPhy]

Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.

Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?

You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.

[guest39538]

Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.

Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?

You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.

I am wrong about what my own  notion states?   how strange


It is not a model?   That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.

Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.

[The Spoon]

Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.

Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?

You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.

I am wrong about what my own  notion states?   how strange


It is not a model?   That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.

Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.

I think he means that your notion is wrong. You are right that it is a notion - not a model. It has absolutely no supporting evidence but your say so.
Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge and the scientific ideas presented are more than just 'a few words a few pics and a bit of math' . Mimicking Wikipedia is all very well, buit it does not make your notions any more scientific than me a cow because I can mimic a cow.

[guest39538]

Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.

Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?

You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.

I am wrong about what my own  notion states?   how strange


It is not a model?   That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.

Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.

I think he means that your notion is wrong. You are right that it is a notion - not a model. It has absolutely no supporting evidence but your say so.
Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge and the scientific ideas presented are more than just 'a few words a few pics and a bit of math' . Mimicking Wikipedia is all very well, buit it does not make your notions any more scientific than me a cow because I can mimic a cow.

Ok, he does not  have to agree that I am correct, however , have you ever fixed an engine where you did not know the problem so had to do trial and error until you was left with one part to test?

This is very similar to what I did with gravity, the last part I gave science to test, it is the last part and I know it is correct because it is the last part.

So if science ignore this , this is their choice because I can't do anymore than I have done .

[PmbPhy]

Thebox - If you wanted to be banned why are you posting so often? Why not delete your account and move on if that's how you felt?

[The Spoon]

Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.

Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?

You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.

I am wrong about what my own  notion states?   how strange


It is not a model?   That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.

Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.

I think he means that your notion is wrong. You are right that it is a notion - not a model. It has absolutely no supporting evidence but your say so.
Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge and the scientific ideas presented are more than just 'a few words a few pics and a bit of math' . Mimicking Wikipedia is all very well, buit it does not make your notions any more scientific than me a cow because I can mimic a cow.

Ok, he does not  have to agree that I am correct, however , have you ever fixed an engine where you did not know the problem so had to do trial and error until you was left with one part to test?

This is very similar to what I did with gravity, the last part I gave science to test, it is the last part and I know it is correct because it is the last part.

So if science ignore this , this is their choice because I can't do anymore than I have done .

No. I have fixed car engines on many occasions and approached it systematically using evidence from the symptoms of the fault to diagnose what was wrong. This is the opposite to your ignorant, slapdash approach to everything.

[guest39538]

Thebox - If you wanted to be banned why are you posting so often? Why not delete your account and move on if that's how you felt?

I love thinking, where else better to think other than about science on a science forum?

I like science Pm, I consider I am trying to help with my thinking by helping science to think a bit more about what they already know.   

Also it passes the time, I have little interest in other things, bored of life I suppose.

[guest39538]

Well my notion states a N-field particle, which is a field particle so therefore the link you provided abstract does not state what I am stating or does it explain gravity mechanism.

Wrong and typical of you. And you wonder why you're ignored so often?

You really need to learn what a model is (i.e. scientific model). All the time you've posted here not once have you used that term correctly. You appear to think that you're idea/postulate of what something is constitutes a scientific model. It does not.

I am wrong about what my own  notion states?   how strange


It is not a model?   That is also strange seems as I mimic Wiki and try to present my notions the same as wiki, a few words a few pics and a bit of math.

Perhaps you are wrong in your assumption.

I think he means that your notion is wrong. You are right that it is a notion - not a model. It has absolutely no supporting evidence but your say so.
Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge and the scientific ideas presented are more than just 'a few words a few pics and a bit of math' . Mimicking Wikipedia is all very well, buit it does not make your notions any more scientific than me a cow because I can mimic a cow.

Ok, he does not  have to agree that I am correct, however , have you ever fixed an engine where you did not know the problem so had to do trial and error until you was left with one part to test?

This is very similar to what I did with gravity, the last part I gave science to test, it is the last part and I know it is correct because it is the last part.

So if science ignore this , this is their choice because I can't do anymore than I have done .

No. I have fixed car engines on many occasions and approached it systematically using evidence from the symptoms of the fault to diagnose what was wrong. This is the opposite to your ignorant, slapdash approach to everything.

No it is not, it is the same approach, I use trial and error.  A while back I tried to explain gravity as negative is attracted to negative, I then went onto think more about the components of the engine, I stripped the engine down to the smallest of components and the only answer that was left is neutral is attracted to neutral.

[guest39538]

What is so difficult to understand?

An electron is attracted to a Proton making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral


The electron in N is still attracted to the Protons of other N's. 

The Proton in N is still attracted to the electrons of other N's. 


That simple.


N→←N

a+b→←a+b

(-e)+(+1e)→←(-e)+(+1e)

(q-)+(q+)→←(q-)+(q+)


It all has the same outcome.


added-  Don't forget velocity = radius not gravity.

[guest39538]

g n.jpg (17.67 kB . 740x464 - viewed 1520 times)

[Bored chemist]

What is so difficult to understand?

An electron is attracted to a Proton making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral

The fact that "making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral " doesn't make sense.
Part of the reason is that an electron and a proton make a hydrogen atom- which isn't an engine.
Another part of the problem is that, as usual, you haven't properly defined your terms- what are a and b?

[guest39538]

What is so difficult to understand?

An electron is attracted to a Proton making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral

The fact that "making up engine component a+b=N where N is neutral " doesn't make sense.
Part of the reason is that an electron and a proton make a hydrogen atom- which isn't an engine.
Another part of the problem is that, as usual, you haven't properly defined your terms- what are a and b?

a and b are obviously the electron and proton.

[Bored chemist]

But "an electron plus a proton = neutral" doesn't make sense  because neutral is an adjective, not a noun.
Also as I pointed out earlier, together them make a hydrogen atom, not "N" or an engine.

Until you learn to express yourself properly, you are wasting both your time and ours.

[guest39538]

But "an electron plus a proton = neutral" doesn't make sense  because neutral is an adjective, not a noun.
Also as I pointed out earlier, together them make a hydrogen atom, not "N" or an engine.

Until you learn to express yourself properly, you are wasting both your time and ours.

What?  words does not make'th science.


Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?


(a+b)2 = F²=Neutron

[Bored chemist]

It's not  a matter of what I want you to say.
It's a matter of, if you don't say it clearly, you might as well not bother to say it at all.

In particular, this doesn't help because in reality t goes the other way.

Would you like me to say a+b=c where c is the neutron?