[ChanRasjid (OP)]

I have a unpublished paper (10 pages; find at my website) on : "Coulomb Electric Gravity And A Simple Unified Theory SUT" :

Gravitation comes by the excess of the attractive forces between unlike charges over the repulsive forces between like charges.  O.F. Mossotti in 1830, a French physics teacher at the University of Buenos Aires, first propagated the idea. Faraday and Weber gave serious consideration to Mossotti hypothesis but neither Weber nor Faraday could have discovered  inverse gravitation as been consequence of Coulombs law as they did not yet know subatomic structure of atoms - electrons protons.

If the electric constant for Coulomb repulsion is k = 1/4πε₀, electric constant attraction is k(1 + d) where d = G/2ke² ; G the gravitational constant, e the electron charge. Electric gravity needs strict conditions:
1) neutron within the nucleus must replaced by a proton and nuclear electron. 
2) Conservation of mass in atoms (repudiated of mass-energy equivalence and E=mc²); this mean the neutron's contribution of mass within the nucleus replaced by mass-proton + mass-electron. The atomic mass of a nuclide is mass number in amu.
1) and 2) above supported by another paper of mine : 
"Our Nuclear Physics Theory All Wrong (Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate?)"

Cavendish Experiment in Water: Coulomb electric gravity could be verified through a Cavendish experiment in the medium of water. In k(1 + d) where d = G/2ke², the permittivity would be replaced by relative permittivity of water 81 X. This would mean gravitation in water would be weaker by 81 X in water. An experiment torque factor 81 is an enormous figure!  It would never unnoticed if Coulomb electric gravity is correct.   

ABSTRACT: SUT is an aether theory. The fundamental substance of the universe is the electric charge, positive and negative. The aether is the substance of space, a superposition of two uniform
charge density +ρ a and −ρ a . There is only a single universal force, the Coulomb electrical forces of attraction and repulsion. Gravitation is the result of a small excess of Coulomb attraction over repulsion. There is no neutron within the nucleus of atoms; nuclear electrons are introduced instead. Mass conservation is valid. SUT develops an electric mechanics with no need of a mass as an independent physical dimension. An electric mass defined as volume/charge of charged particles completely replaces the gravitational mass concept.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid Kah Chew.

[ChanRasjid (OP)]

Cavendish experiment in water:

It is simple to do today, but cannot use oscillation timing to determine torque of twisted torsion wire; must use technique of a counter angle twist restore torsion beam with small lead balls to original neutral point. The small balls on beam and two large lead balls must be fixedly support from some frames above in order that sets of balls may be immersed in 2 container of water from below to submerge balls separately; this would be the water version of Cavendish.

Chan Rasjid Kah Chew.   

[Bored chemist]

The "Cavendish experiment in water" is an interesting idea, but it's difficult.
How about using other mechanisms to measure gravity with, and without water?

For example, how about measuring the height of satellites s they go round the world; if water made a difference to gravity, then it would affect the orbits.
Now, let's consider how we might do this experiment.
We could get a bunch of satellites with very good clocks and set them in orbit round the planet.
Then we could use them to triangulate the location of base stations on Earth's surface based on the calculated orbits and the time taken for the signals to arrive.

If water made a significant difference then we would see anomalies in the calculated positions.

We did that.
It's called GPS.
It works.
Your idea is proven wrong.

[Bored chemist]

On a related note, re.

(Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate?)

Yes, it is.

[ChanRasjid (OP)]

The "Cavendish experiment in water" is an interesting idea, but it's difficult.
How about using other mechanisms to measure gravity with, and without water?

For example, how about measuring the height of satellites s they go round the world; if water made a difference to gravity, then it would affect the orbits.
Now, let's consider how we might do this experiment.
We could get a bunch of satellites with very good clocks and set them in orbit round the planet.
Then we could use them to triangulate the location of base stations on Earth's surface based on the calculated orbits and the time taken for the signals to arrive.

If water made a significant difference then we would see anomalies in the calculated positions.

We did that.
It's called GPS.
It works.
Your idea is proven wrong.

Please go emc2fails have many varied details of argumentation. Please add a dotcom suffix.

This wrong by big margin : "If water made a significant difference then we would see anomalies in the calculated positions".  Planet satellites orbitals of m1 and earth M2 depended solely on center-mass of object m1 and M2 - no dependent on distribution of earths material uneveness; core molten iron, surface ocean water same Kepler elliptical orbits results - no anomalies would be found. This is particle dynamics - point to point particle dynamics. Great difference if space between satellites and earth surface all water!     

Mass spectrometry and Penning trap found mass-deficits because they use F = q(v X B) as strict mathematics and absolute to all precision - but Lorentz magnetic never ever once verified directly. Precision of Penning trap undoubted to high precesion 10¯¹⁰, but if weigh atom masses, only can take about 4 significant figures - the rest unusable. No need us Penning trap for atom masses, take mass = mass number amu.

Chan Rasjid.

[Bored chemist]

Planet satellites orbitals of m1 and earth M2 depended solely on center-mass of object m1 and M2 - no dependent on distribution of earths material uneveness; core molten iron, surface ocean water same Kepler elliptical orbits results - no anomalies would be found.

No
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/features/F_Measuring_Gravity_With_Grace.html

if weigh atom masses, only can take about 4 significant figures

No
https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-silicon-spheres-and-international-avogadro-project

[Kryptid]

2) Conservation of mass in atoms (repudiated of mass-energy equivalence and E=mc²); this mean the neutron's contribution of mass within the nucleus replaced by mass-proton + mass-electron. The atomic mass of a nuclide is mass number in amu.

Neutrons weigh more than the simple sum of the electron mass and the proton mass.

[ChanRasjid (OP)]

2) Conservation of mass in atoms (repudiated of mass-energy equivalence and E=mc²); this mean the neutron's contribution of mass within the nucleus replaced by mass-proton + mass-electron. The atomic mass of a nuclide is mass number in amu.

Neutrons weigh more than the simple sum of the electron mass and the proton mass.

We don't know mass of neutron ever. My "Mass spectrometry wrong (go emc2failsDotCom)" shows if atom mass is weigh with chemical scale, atom mass is same as mass number as amu. Proof is analysing Sodium fluoride composition with analytical balance. So no mass defect implying all ideas of "binding energy" from E= mc² wrong - no mass defect means it cannot have an "m" to put into E=mc² (it is also a clear proof E=mc² refuted). All nuclear energy is still only Coulomb potential within nucleus, but extremely great.

Mass of neutron never ever measured, but only deduced from binding energy of deuterium by combining with E=mc² giving wrong neutron mass.  So contribution of neutron mass within nucleus now replaced with exact (mass proton + mass nuclear electron). Now 1 kg of any neutral body (any matter composition) will have exact same number of (electron, proton) pairs. Only this will make electric gravity correct as Newtonian mass gravitation.

Chan Rasjid.

[Kryptid]

Proof is analysing Sodium fluoride composition with analytical balance.

So when was this proof obtained? By who? What teams successfully replicated the results? What peer-reviewed journal was it published in?

[ChanRasjid (OP)]

Proof is analysing Sodium fluoride composition with analytical balance.

So when was this proof obtained? By who? What teams successfully replicated the results? What peer-reviewed journal was it published in?

It is not proven yet now as no one like to do the experiment. If you are university physics professor, please ask your students to confirm the atom mass composition of sodium fluoride and do a comparison, then who is right and wrong would be known. Now still not sure if mass conservation good or Einstein E=mc2 best together with mass-energy equivalence.

Chan Rasjid.

[Kryptid]

It is not proven yet

So... are you using an experiment that hasn't even been done as evidence that mass spectroscopy is wrong or what?

[ChanRasjid (OP)]

It is not proven yet

So... are you using an experiment that hasn't even been done as evidence that mass spectroscopy is wrong or what?

It is also not proven yet that the mass spectrometry weighing giving mass defects correct. Only the experiment decides between mass conservation or mass spectrometry.

Now assuming mass conservation good (mass spectrometry wrong) gives an electric gravity which explains all planetary gravitation per current universal gravitation and this is like verification of electric gravitation.

Chan Rasjid. 

[Kryptid]

It is also not proven yet that the mass spectrometry weighing giving mass defects correct.

We understand enough about physics to know that it is. Do you really not think that we are capable of measuring the strength of electric fields in the laboratory?

Now assuming mass conservation good (mass spectrometry wrong)

Conservation of mass does not make mass spectrometry wrong. The photons released when an atomic nucleus is formed have relativistic mass. Add that to the mass of the newly formed nucleus and you get a mass equal to each nucleon which it is composed of. Besides, when an electron and a positron annihilate, they turn into nothing but photons. Those photons have the energies predicted by relativity. E=mc² is not in question. It has been verified to high accuracy.

gives an electric gravity which explains all planetary gravitation per current universal gravitation and this is like verification of electric gravitation.

No it doesn't. If gravity was merely the result of electromagnetic interactions, then gravitational waves would be identical to electromagnetic waves. They are not. Gravitational waves were detected in 2015 and behaved in the manner predicted by relativity. They stretch and compress space, which is something that LIGO was designed specifically to detect. Electromagnetic waves do not do that.

[Bored chemist]

Proof is analysing Sodium fluoride composition with analytical balance.

So when was this proof obtained? By who? What teams successfully replicated the results? What peer-reviewed journal was it published in?

It is not proven yet now as no one like to do the experiment. If you are university physics professor, please ask your students to confirm the atom mass composition of sodium fluoride and do a comparison, then who is right and wrong would be known. Now still not sure if mass conservation good or Einstein E=mc2 best together with mass-energy equivalence.

Chan Rasjid.

Do you not understand that "experiments" like this are done every day?
People make materials like sodium fluoride.
If you were  "right" then they wouldn't get the amounts they expected.
But  they do.
So you re wrong.

[Bored chemist]

It is also not proven yet that the mass spectrometry weighing giving mass defects correct.

Repeating this claim does not make it true.
It is wrong.
I pointed this out to you.

No
https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-silicon-spheres-and-international-avogadro-project

[ChanRasjid (OP)]

...
Do you not understand that "experiments" like this are done every day?
People make materials like sodium fluoride.
If you were  "right" then they wouldn't get the amounts they expected.
But  they do.
So you re wrong.

Let me have mass composition ratio NaF as Na/F. Where you get the data. Give also error estimate.

Chan Rasjid.

[ChanRasjid (OP)]

It is also not proven yet that the mass spectrometry weighing giving mass defects correct.

Repeating this claim does not make it true.
It is wrong.
I pointed this out to you.

No
https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-silicon-spheres-and-international-avogadro-project [nofollow]

I think it is very good to define a superior SI kilogram.

Chan Rasjid.

[Bored chemist]

What do you think is special about sodium fluoride?

People have looked at the mass spectrum of it
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0168117690800639
if there was anything unexpected they would have noticed.

This paper uses a ToF machine so it's going to be high resolution- probably something like 1 part in a million.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337371/

Do you actually have any evidence that there is anything unexpected about mass spectroscopic data?

Do you have any evidence of anything that is a "problem", or are you just making stuff up?

[ChanRasjid (OP)]

What do you think is special about sodium fluoride?

People have looked at the mass spectrum of it
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0168117690800639 [nofollow]
if there was anything unexpected they would have noticed.

This paper uses a ToF machine so it's going to be high resolution- probably something like 1 part in a million.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4337371/ [nofollow]

Do you actually have any evidence that there is anything unexpected about mass spectroscopic data?

Do you have any evidence of anything that is a "problem", or are you just making stuff up?

You have not given me the data composition of sodium fluoride as I requested.

Have you read my paper: "Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate?" Why mass spectrometry is wrong is all there, including the most famous Penning trap measures atom mass to 4/5 figures not 10/11 as promoted.

If you have not read my paper, I don't know if we are debating the same thing. My conclusion Penning trap measures atom mass only good till 4/5 figures at the very best!

Chan Rasjid.

[ChanRasjid (OP)]

There are 2 experiments that could verify electric gravitation unequivocally.
see papers at my website (emc2failsDotCom)
http://www.emc2fails.com [nofollow]
1) free fall  acceleration of electrons greater than that of proton by a factor of 1836. This would completely repudiate the current prediction that all "gravitational" mass falls at 9.8 m/s/s. But such experiments almost impossible to do as they have tried free fall experiments of electrons to test general relativity gravity. No way to eliminate electromagnetic interference.
2) Cavendish experiment with water medium. The original large lead balls of the original Cavendish experiment replace by two huge tanks of water. The small balls would still be lead. Now the distance from the center-of-mass of the water to the lead ball would pass through water - a dielectric - for most of the distance. If electric gravity is good, gravitation in water would show a factor difference of 70-80 X weaker - an enormous value easily detected. This experiment would not cost a billion dollars! Would any university department be interested to perform such an experiment?

Chan Rasjid.