Gravity, what is it?

[Justatruthseeker]

Gravity, what is it?


From basic Electric Field Theory we know that the electric field radiates outward and inward according to the inverse square law. The voltage potential in space is what E was trying to describe geometrically, the cause of those electrodynamic moving bodies. Electrical engineers have long known only the center point is neutral

You see, I have nothing per se about the idea of a point mass, I just claim it is not compressed matter with violates GR and SR.

http://iweb.tntech.edu/murdock/books/v4chap4.pdf

6. What are (a) the charge and (b) the charge density on the surface of a conducting sphere of radius 0.15m whose potential is 200V (with V = 0 at infinity)?
(a) We are given the radius R of the conducting sphere; we are asked to find its charge Q.
From our work with Gauss’(s) law we know that the electric field outside the sphere is the same as that of a point charge Q at the sphere’s center. Then if we were to use Eq. 4.6 with the condition V = 0 at infinity (which is outside the sphere!), we would get the same result for V as we would for a point charge Q at the origin and V = 0 at infinity,
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/courses/phy2049/sum12/Exam1SolSM12.pdf
This is problem is very easy to solve if one recalls the superposition principle. The total electric field at any point in space is equal to the sum of the individual contributions from each source. The electric field produced by the sphere in its interior is always zero.

But everywhere else except at the origin point it is a positive voltage differential, which holds true even to infinity, which is so far away as to be presumed as having no discernible effect. We simply use what we measure everywhere, voltage potential.

And since you believe the gravitational point is 0, then a Black Hole is 0 at its point source as well. Also making it an electrical event in plasma, since we see great jets of plasma erupting from the highly active galactic centers. And it works as well with a hollow sphere, where the force decreases inversely in either direction from its surface, just like we observe with gravity. And of course the Energy Momentum Tensor in black hole theory is of course set to Ric = 0.

The problem is I use *ONE* force and *ONE* math to explain it all, but mainstream requires two different equations to attempt to describe the same gravitational field that is supposedly a constant.

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_earth.html#coreweight

First, the most important thing to know is that gravity exists absolutely everywhere in the universe. Every bit of matter exerts a force on every other bit of matter. This means that you are attracted, and attract, everything in the universe!

Notice that the formula that applies inside the Earth is different from the one that applies outside.

Just not in mainstreams math as soon as you go below a surface. They promptly pretend there is no mass above you so they can get to 0 G. Yet claim gravity is everywhere and every bit of matter exerts a force on every other bit of matter everywhere in the universe. Until you go beneath a surface, then they claim the opposite of what they assured you was a universal truth, tell you all the mass above your head isn't really attracting every other bit of mass in your body and have to invent an entirely new math to describe this same gravitational force that they just told you applied everywhere and was a universal law. Double-talk and twisting of their own laws of physics to make it fit.

Yet one need not ignore the math and make up two different equations to explain the same gravitational force you claim is everywhere, it is merely electrical!

You should already know this. This is why the solar wind continues to accelerate out past the orbit of Jupiter and when it reaches the heliopause comes to a complete stop. Which the EU predicted before Voyager 1 even got far enough to detect this phenomenon. Mainstream thought the solar wind would veer sideways, like water hitting a wall. Because fluid motion is all they have to describe electrical events.

NASA Spacecraft Nears Interstellar Space | Voyager 1 | Space.com

The Voyager team also thinks the magnetic fields surrounding the spacecraft should change when it crosses the solar boundary. Those field lines run roughly east-west within the heliosphere, and researchers predict they'll shift to a more north-south orientation in interstellar space. They're currently looking at Voyager 1 data for any signs of such a transition.

But later we find that:

Voyager 1 Farther From Solar System's Edge Than Thought | Space.com

Decker and his colleagues requested that the Voyager project team rotate Voyager 1 periodically to see if the solar wind was in fact getting deflected in a northward or southward manner. They found no evidence of deflection in the zone the probe was zipping through.

Apparently you now no longer even have a working model of the solar system.

Yet this is what the EU predicted years ago.
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Gas_discharge.jpg

That the solar wind would reach the voltage hill at the edge of the heliopause and come to a stop. Where the particles would mill about until they gained enough energy to make it over this voltage hill to be accelerated to cosmic ray energies.

Voyager 1 Flies Through 'Magnetic Highway' On Its Way Out Of The Solar System - Forbes

In the “magnetic highway,” the Sun’s magnetic field intersects with magnetic fields in interstellar space. This causes charged particles that initially came from the Sun to speed up and head out of our solar system. And interstellar particles caught in the “highway” then zoom into our own solar system. The magnetic field is also more intense at this point, whereas before hitting this point, Voyager 1 had been detecting a decrease in its intensity.

So this "highway" causes outside particles caught in it to "zoom" into our solar system. Let's at least use the proper words shall we? The solar wind that had stopped was then accelerated outward and particles are also observed accelerating inwards from this field. This is what electric fields do, they accelerate particles.

Particle accelerator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A particle accelerator is a device that uses electromagnetic fields to propel charged particles to high speeds and to contain them in well-defined beams.

Electric fields also create all the observed phenomenon in the universe and solar system.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7623-plasma-experiment-recreates-astrophysical-jets.html#.UeIInG2wVLU

The lab where it is always sunny: Researchers recreate precursor to solar flares | Mail Online

 

[essentialsaltes]

Look, your source says "The electric field produced by the sphere in its interior is always zero."

It does not say at the center of the charged sphere. It says in its interior. If the E field is zero, the electrostatic force is zero.

Just not in mainstreams math as soon as you go below a surface. They promptly pretend there is no mass above you so they can get to 0 G.

No, we do not pretend there is no mass above you. We calculate that the force of the mass above you is cancelled by an equal and opposite contribution from a patch on the other side of the earth. The net sum of the forces of a spherical shell around you is zero in its interior.

This follows from the mathematics of the inverse square law. Since Coulomb's Law is also inverse square, you get the same result for the electric force in the interior of a spherical shell of charge as you get for the gravity force in the interior of a spherical shell of mass. It is zero.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This follows from the mathematics of the inverse square law. Since Coulomb's Law is also inverse square, you get the same result for the electric force in the interior of a spherical shell of charge as you get for the gravity force in the interior of a spherical shell of mass. It is zero.

So why pretend that it is a bent spacetime that is composed of nothing to explain what the electric force laws explain in one single formula inside and outside, while your math requires two separate formulas to explain the same thing?

Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bending space requires it bend *away* from the center since that point has no gravitational influence. remember, mass bends spacetime, spacetime then tells mass how to move. There is no force, so why you calculating a force?

 

[essentialsaltes]

while your math requires two separate formulas to explain the same thing?

I just told you, in this case, Coulomb's Law and Newton's Law of Gravity give you the same results, since they are both inverse square laws. For a spherical shell of charge/mass, they both require two separate formulas, one for inside the shell, one for outside the shell.

So why pretend that it is a bent spacetime that is composed of nothing to explain what the electric force laws

#1: Because Einstein's gravitation explains the observations better than Newton's Law of Gravity.

#2: Because trying to use electric force to explain gravity is doomed to rapid failure. If the Sun attracts the earth, then they must have opposite charge. If the earth attracts the moon, then they must have opposite charge. Thus, the Sun and the moon have the same charge and should repel. They do not.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I just told you, in this case, Coulomb's Law and Newton's Law of Gravity give you the same results, since they are both inverse square laws. For a spherical shell of charge/mass, they both require two separate formulas, one for inside the shell, one for outside the shell.



#1: Because Einstein's gravitation explains the observations better than Newton's Law of Gravity.

#2: Because trying to use electric force to explain gravity is doomed to rapid failure. If the Sun attracts the earth, then they must have opposite charge. If the earth attracts the moon, then they must have opposite charge. Thus, the Sun and the moon have the same charge and should repel. They do not.

You know nothing about how charged particles behave in electric and magnetic fields apparently.

Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field

Nor apparently do you understand the Lorentz Force all of Einstein's gravitation is based upon to make that claim.

The Lorentz Force

For someone that relies on all of the electromagnetic force laws to explain spacetime, you sure seem adamant it isn't electromagnetic without a valid basis for that claim. I say the atom is explained electromagnetically to which all of science agrees. It is attempting to define this as a gravity force that has been a failure and is always destined to be a failure.

It is this refusal to accept what your own science tells you that makes uniting the micro and macro impossible, because you include it in the micro and exclude it in the macro.

That's why your math fails utterly to describe galactic rotation curves, why you had to add Fairie Dust to save it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You know nothing about how charged particles behave in electric and magnetic fields apparently.

No, I'm well aware of that. I am also aware that you have just thrown up a huge non sequitur, rather than attempting to address my two points.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I'm well aware of that. I am also aware that you have just thrown up a huge non sequitur, rather than attempting to address my two points.

Did, you just fail to realize it.

#1: Because Einstein's gravitation explains the observations better than Newton's Law of Gravity.

Because E used the Lorentz Force and Maxwell's equations (Electromagnetic equations) to describe gravity whereas Newton did not. Nothing mysterious there, of course it will describe it better. Then fails at galaxies because the EM force is excluded.

#2: Because trying to use electric force to explain gravity is doomed to rapid failure. If the Sun attracts the earth, then they must have opposite charge. If the earth attracts the moon, then they must have opposite charge. Thus, the Sun and the moon have the same charge and should repel. They do not.

Another misconception. Electrical currents can be negative, positive or both. The charge of the particles do not matter, just that they move.

"Electricity" Misconceptions Spread By K-6 Textbooks

Electric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or by both ions and electrons such as in a plasma.

A flow of positive charges gives the same electric current, and has the same effect in a circuit, as an equal flow of negative charges in the opposite direction. Since current can be the flow of either positive or negative charges, or both, a convention for the direction of current which is independent of the type of charge carriers is needed.

These same charges you claim are negative flowing in a wire both attract and repel, only depending on the current pathway they take from multiple particles orbiting another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43AeuDvWc0k

Series and parallel circuits - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It is your misconceptions that they must be one or the other, not merely a voltage differential.

"Electricity" Misconceptions Spread By K-6 Textbooks

Electrical curriculum: What is Voltage?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Because E used the Lorentz Force and Maxwell's equations (Electromagnetic equations) to describe gravity

That is not at all what Einstein's General Relativity does.

Then fails at galaxies because the EM force is excluded.

If, as you claim, Einstein used Maxwell's equations, how can the EM force be excluded?

Another misconception. Electrical currents can be negative, positive or both. The charge of the particles do not matter, just that they move.

If you claim gravity is the result of current/current interactions, you're in even more trouble, because they will not exhibit an inverse square law.

And you still have the same problem I outlined. If the sun attracts both the earth and the moon by EM, then the charges and currents of both earth and the moon have to be aligned in a fixed way with respect to the sun. As the moon orbits around the earth, the interaction between those two cannot also be simultaneously arranged to produce attraction.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is not at all what Einstein's General Relativity does.



If, as you claim, Einstein used Maxwell's equations, how can the EM force be excluded?

Because you only apply magnetic forces. You refuse to consider the electrical force that must be present for plasma to be even called a plasma. Without these freely moving charges it would be gas, liquid or solid, an electromagnetically bound substance where these forces are equal. Which is why it works in the close confines of the solar system where matter is held in close confines and fails utterly at galactic distances.

If you claim gravity is the result of current/current interactions, you're in even more trouble, because they will not exhibit an inverse square law.

Once again that is *your* misconception.

Inverse-square law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, as do the effects of electric, magnetic, light, sound, and radiation phenomena.

Everything follows it.

And you still have the same problem I outlined. If the sun attracts both the earth and the moon by EM, then the charges and currents of both earth and the moon have to be aligned in a fixed way with respect to the sun. As the moon orbits around the earth, the interaction between those two cannot also be simultaneously arranged to produce attraction.

And yet we know the Earth's orbit around the Sun is not a perfect circle, but increases and decreases.

The planet’s distance from the Sun varies as it orbits. Actually, the Earth is never the same distance from the Sun from day to day.

So no problem really except for your misconceptions.

It is this variation you claim cause weather patterns.

Div of Energy - DNR

The Earth travels around the sun in an elliptical orbit that varies in shape, with time from nearly circular to distinctly elliptical. This, combined with the fact that the sun is not the centroid of the earth's orbit, causes the distance from the Earth to the sun to vary. For instance, the current annual variation of this distance is between 147 million kilometers and 152 million kilometers. The distances can be as much as 142 million kilometers for a minimum and 156 million kilometers for a maximum.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Because you only apply magnetic forces. You refuse to consider the electrical force

We're talking about Einstein, not me. You said Einstein included E&M to make general relativity (which is wrong), and then you said general relativity excluded electromagnetism (which is inconsistent).

Everything follows it.

Wrong! If you're imagining the earth, moon, and sun to be some sort of loop of current, then a loop of current creates a magnetic dipole. And a dipole/dipole interaction goes as the inverse fourth power. And back to my original comment, this force is very dependent on the geometry. You cannot make the earth, sun, and moon all mutually attract if they are dipoles.

And yet we know the Earth's orbit around the Sun is not a perfect circle

Nobody said otherwise.

 

[Gottservant]

Gravity is a probability wave caught in an endless cycle, governed by the four fundamental laws of physics.

It was given to us specifically for the purpose of substantiating a world, in which we may live.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We're talking about Einstein, not me. You said Einstein included E&M to make general relativity (which is wrong), and then you said general relativity excluded electromagnetism (which is inconsistent).

E was correct in SR, I don't challenge that. It was when he attempted to transform a moving frame into a stationary frame with co-linear Lorentz Transformations that he went wrong. SR was "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". GR is a force free attempt to generalize SR which failed, as E himself said.

Wrong! If you're imagining the earth, moon, and sun to be some sort of loop of current, then a loop of current creates a magnetic dipole. And a dipole/dipole interaction goes as the inverse fourth power. And back to my original comment, this force is very dependent on the geometry. You cannot make the earth, sun, and moon all mutually attract if they are dipoles.



Nobody said otherwise.

Here, put in what you left out

Force between magnets - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If two or more magnets are small enough or sufficiently distant that their shape and size is not important

So if you go down to the beyond the atomic scale (which is only theory - never observed) or separate them enough that their shapes no longer matter (half-way across the universe) of course you have to use weird math to try to explain things. So I guess you do not think the Sun's shape and size is important? Or the size of Jupiter, or the distance between them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_dipole_moment
And in physics it is simply a measure of polarity.

In physics, the electric dipole moment is a measure of the separation of positive and negative electrical charges in a system of electric charges, that is, a measure of the charge system's overall polarity.

And dipoles are from the same people that want to say the electric dipole and magnetic dipole of a proton is from 3 quarks, a neutron from 3 quarks, and electron from a single particle. You can't even be consistent in that.

Neither Gauss, Maxwell, Faraday, Weber, or Lorentz needed dipoles. Mainstream uses dipoles in an attempt to explain the electric force non-electrically. And the math still doesn't use the 4th power.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So I guess you do not think the Sun's shape and size is important? Or the size of Jupiter, or the distance between them?

The distance between them is of paramount importance. Look, the thing you yourself quoted said "sufficiently distant that their shape and size is not important".

The Sun's radius is 700,000 km
Jupiter's radius is 70,000 km

The distance between them is more than 700,000,000 km.

So the ratio of the Sun's size to the distance between the two bodies is 0.001.

This means that the difference between the 'real' answer and the dipole approximation is relatively small. The dipole interaction goes as the inverse fourth power. Furthermore, since there's no such thing as a magnetic monopole, the corrections to the dipole-dipole approximation will fall even faster with distance.

Current interactions between celestial bodies will never produce an inverse square law.

 

[florida2]

Thank goodness we have Justatruthseeker here to overturn the past 100 years of science orthodoxy and work by Einstein and hundreds of other scientists around the world.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Thank goodness we have Justatruthseeker here to overturn the past 100 years of science orthodoxy and work by Einstein and hundreds of other scientists around the world.

No just bring science back to reality.


http://www.ias.ac.in/pramana/sept2000/P5236.PDF

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Besides, you already have an observed heating source for the Earth, including magma.

Telluric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ReverendDG]

Besides, you already have an observed heating source for the Earth, including magma.

Telluric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wow you mean the mass of the earth that pulls the heaviest elements to the center where gravity causes them to heat?
what do telluric currents have to do with the core of the earth? did you even read that wiki page? it's about using telluric currents to explore the earth, it has nothing to do with the earth's core.

 

[ReverendDG]

No just bring science back to reality.


http://www.ias.ac.in/pramana/sept2000/P5236.PDF

how is believing pseudo-science "bringing science back to reality"
sounds like abandoning reality to me.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

how is believing pseudo-science "bringing science back to reality"
sounds like abandoning reality to me.

You already abondoned rational science when you ignored the EM force and Plasma and decided to worship Fairie Dust instead. My theories are backed by 100 years of electrical science that brought about modern technology. Yours is based upon undetectable sky entities called black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, expanding space which is nothing but is expanding anyways. You sure you want to talk about pdeudoscience?

You are following a religion that will brook no challenge to its sky entities. Funny how space is always expanding out that-away, but never where one could possibly measure it. Funny how black holes are always out that-away, and never where one could falsify them. Funny how dark matter is always out that-away, and never around us where one could falsify it. Funny how neutron stars are composed of an imaginary substance never once observed and is actually shown by science to be impossible.

Yes, pseudoscience is an apt word for what modern mainstream science has become. All hail the Big Bang.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

wow you mean the mass of the earth that pulls the heaviest elements to the center where gravity causes them to heat?
what do telluric currents have to do with the core of the earth? did you even read that wiki page? it's about using telluric currents to explore the earth, it has nothing to do with the earth's core.

Becaue it is those same electric currents that is heating the earth, not some fantasized perpetual motion core spinning at the center of the Earth for 4+ billion years against friction. Maybe you need to think about what electric currents flowing through a conductor do.

Induction heating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's why you got fans in your computer, it gets hot.