[Kartazion (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

What do you think?

I think it's meaningless.

[Kartazion (OP)]

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.

* 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

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Kartazion (OP)]

What are you trying to use it for?

Sorry. I meant retraction. Please, can a moderator correct my title? Thank you.

[Origin]

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. 

[Kartazion (OP)]

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.

[Kartazion (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kartazion (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kartazion (OP)]

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?

[Kartazion (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

well known electrogravitics is

wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics#Criticism

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?

Because this is a discussion forum, not a chat forum.
Why are you so determined to be wrong?

[Kartazion (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kartazion (OP)]

Essentially everything you posted.

I don't believe you.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Origin]

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.