Thread: Electromagnetic gravity

The hydrogen atom is made up of a single electron and a single proton. It has always been claimed that the the electric forces between two atoms cancel since there are two equal and opposite charges in each atom.

It this really true? How could it be true, since the two charges are located at different positions in space? Since this is not the case, then this leaves open the possibility that gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon that can be analyzed using the basic laws of electromagnetism.

Sorry.

Originally Posted by sharpsword

The hydrogen atom is made up of a single electron and a single proton. It has always been claimed that the the electric forces between two atoms cancel since there are two equal and opposite charges in each atom.

It this really true? How could it be true, since the two charges are located at different positions in space? Since this is not the case, then this leaves open the possibility that gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon that can be analyzed using the basic laws of electromagnetism.

Sorry.

No it doesn't. It is very easy to show that the forces that result from such a slight displacement of the charges fall off very sharply with distance, do not follow the inverse square law and only become a factor at very short ranges(within a few atomic radii). There is no way to make them responsible for the long range gravitational force.

Besides, they are already well understood. It is this short range electrostatic repulsion that result for the contact forces between objects.

I appreciate your responses, which were pretty much as anticipated. However, you are both wrong. It is true that the falloff in the near field of the electric dipole of a hydrogen atom (having but a single electron and a single proton) is third order, but the falloff in the far field is second order.

It is true that the dipole field is well understood for the static case. However, when it is moved, things change. If you don't believe, this you can prove it to yourself by trying to solve a very simple puzzle at

www.science-site.net/puzzle.htm .

This puzzle may seem simple to solve at first, but it is not.

Take into consideration the fact that the gravitational force is very tiny in comparison to the Coulomb force (by a factor of about 10^41 times). Therefore, any nonlinearity in the electrical forces can produce forces in excess of the gravitational force. Note that the dipole equation is nonlinear.

The scenario that I chose for the hydrogen atom is one electron rotating around a fixed proton and two stationary atoms spaced apart. Therefore one must consider the proton-proton and electron-electron negative force and the electron-proton positive forces. Then space the atoms apart and add all of the forces together. They do not add up to zero, and the resulting force is greater than that of gravity by a small amount.

Originally Posted by sharpsword

I appreciate your responses, which were pretty much as anticipated. However, you are both wrong. It is true that the falloff in the near field of the electric dipole of a hydrogen atom (having but a single electron and a single proton) is third order, but the falloff in the far field is second order.

It is true that the dipole field is well understood for the static case. However, when it is moved, things change. If you don't believe, this you can prove it to yourself by trying to solve a very simple puzzle at

www.science-site.net/puzzle.htm .

This puzzle may seem simple to solve at first, but it is not.

Take into consideration the fact that the gravitational force is very tiny in comparison to the Coulomb force (by a factor of about 10^41 times). Therefore, any nonlinearity in the electrical forces can produce forces in excess of the gravitational force. Note that the dipole equation is nonlinear.

The scenario that I chose for the hydrogen atom is one electron rotating around a fixed proton and two stationary atoms spaced apart. Therefore one must consider the proton-proton and electron-electron negative force and the electron-proton positive forces. Then space the atoms apart and add all of the forces together. They do not add up to zero, and the resulting force is greater than that of gravity by a small amount.

And this nonlinearity always produces an attractive force proportional to mass and independent of electric charge for what reason ?

Dr. Rocket,

I did not say that the gravitational force is independent of charge. The larger the mass, the greater the electric charge. Therefore, the gravitational force is proportional to the electric charge and the mass.

Evidently, you did not check out the link that I provided. Not much scientific effort has been devoted to moving dipoles, which is the key to understanding gravity.

Now I think I know what your next question will be.

Originally Posted by sharpsword

Dr. Rocket,

I did not say that the gravitational force is independent of charge. The larger the mass, the greater the electric charge. Therefore, the gravitational force is proportional to the electric charge and the mass.

Evidently, you did not check out the link that I provided. Not much scientific effort has been devoted to moving dipoles, which is the key to understanding gravity.

Now I think I know what your next question will be.

What we have here is another candidate for the Pseudoscience forum.

I did look at your silly site. Younhave an incompletely defined problem -- incompletely defined because the time-dependent trajectories of the charged particles are needed. If the problem were to be fully defined the theory of retarded potentials would apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential

Gravity is not a dipole effect or any other classical electrodynamic effect.

You seem to have a level of understanding that precludes any ideas that
would question your understanding Dr, any ideas that are contrary to your
fixed opinions are inane, and should be trashed.
For your enlightenment, 70 years ago the concept of continental drift was
rubbished. I would, Dr, ask one thing of you, are you so fixed in your mind
that any new ideas or theories are anathema to you?
I asked you to check out New Scientist about New phyisics, your reply
is deafening.
nokton.

What we have here is another candidate for the Pseudoscience forum.

I did look at your silly site. Younhave an incompletely defined problem -- incompletely defined because the time-dependent trajectories of the charged particles are needed. If the problem were to be fully defined the theory of retarded potentials would apply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential

Gravity is not a dipole effect or any other classical electrodynamic effect

(alt+q)

The defined electron orbit is a circular path around the proton.

I have indeed shown that the force of gravity is a dipole effect, since the four electric forces between two hydrogen atoms produce an overall attractive force that is slightly greater than the force of gravity. Nothing new here except for writing the equations and apply a math program to obtain the exact values.

This is not Pseudoscience since there are complete definitions and complete proofs using well known and accepted data and physics equations about which you should be familiar.[/quote]

Originally Posted by nokton

You seem to have a level of understanding that precludes any ideas that
would question your understanding Dr, any ideas that are contrary to your
fixed opinions are inane, and should be trashed.
For your enlightenment, 70 years ago the concept of continental drift was
rubbished. I would, Dr, ask one thing of you, are you so fixed in your mind
that any new ideas or theories are anathema to you?
I asked you to check out New Scientist about New phyisics, your reply
is deafening.
nokton.

To the first part -- no

To the second part -- I wouldn't waste my time with the New Scientist (or with you). There is a big difference between an open mind ans an empty head.

Scientific research is all about questioning. Good researchers know what to question. You are clearly not a good researcher.

Hi Dr, You amusing me now, researchers in science are usually paid and
told what to research and question. I am not a researcher, rather about
evaluating and questioning new ideas and concepts that could improve
our understanding of physics and cosmology. New Scientist is a very respected
science magazine, regret you have no time for it. You have no time for me
also, but you respond to my post. For what its worth Dr, would enjoy further
dialogue with you on all aspects of science, respect your opinion, as is my
right to challenge it in reason and logic.
nokton.

And this nonlinearity always produces an attractive force proportional to mass and independent of electric charge for what reason ?

The only real experimental proove for this is from the torsionbalance where G is determined with. That experiement it is assumed there is no chargedifference between the parts that attract each other. Chargedifference being zero is an assumption not proven there.

If you have an objekt hanging from a ceiling on a thin isolating wire compared with an objekt at same heigt but direkt floorcontact there will always be a charge difference related to atmospheric chargedifferences with heigth and the length of the wire, the type of floorcontact and so on.
For the torsionbalance the only difference with this setup is that the room is changed for a glasssurrounding the objekts are duplicated and air is removed with a pump.

I would like to see the scientific proof that these differences totally rule out any chargedifference.

That evidence simply does not exist. Until I can,t find that evidence I can,t assume the gravitationalconstant being a constant either with higher charge differences between dipoles C would also become much higher and compensate for the distances.

Until I haven,t seen that proof (please show the experimental data to exist or proof theoretical that there can,t be any chargedifference within a torsionbalance) if I see how a charged plastic comb pulls the water sideways coming from a tab I see how tha - relatively - charged comb deforms timespace for the water. In this case also both the comb and the water are di-poles with a much bigger charge difference then within the torsionbalance hence the usual graitationalconstant is useless. Much bigger and then the distance can be bigger also to see "gravitation at work".

You are evidently talking about a large scale charge difference, which has nothing to do with my statements above which apply at the atomic scale. You can find details here:

http://www.science-site.net/index.html

Originally Posted by nokton

Hi Dr, You amusing me now, researchers in science are usually paid and
told what to research and question.

This suggests you are unfamiliar with scientists... We can research whatever we like so long as we can get a grant for it and it doesn't involve committing crimes. The second clause is flexible.

Thanx Bio, you just made my day. For what its worth, do I understand scientists?
The short answer is no, insomuch as I have no friends that are scientists.
Do I understand science? Yes. Do I understand those who are involved in science?
Maybe, depends on where they are coming from. There are those who gained
a qualification by rote learning, and those who qualified because they understood.
In the former, we have a closed mind, in the latter, we have hope.
nokton.

Originally Posted by nokton

Do I understand science? Yes. Do I understand those who are involved in science?
Maybe, depends on where they are coming from. There are those who gained
a qualification by rote learning, and those who qualified because they understood.

You can get a science degree by rote learning, though not a very good one. Certainly it would take a gifted individual to get a first by rote learning alone. Have you done a science degree?

But what do you consider to be a scientist? Anyone working in the industry, or the people doing research and publishing? I wouldn't call someone with a science degree, filling test tubes in an industry lab or pushing paper in an office, to be a scientist.

A scientist, in the professional meaning of the word, is a researcher.* To work in research you need to be doing a PhD or have one already. You can't get a PhD by rote learning- the courses are not taught, they're done by pure research. One of the criteria for passing a PhD viva examination is that the work has to be novel. By definition, one has to have innovated. You can't innovate without understanding the subject matter.

* As an aside- I subscribe to a broader meaning of the word "scientist"- to mean anyone who follows the scientific method, regardless of method or profession. But I suspect we're talking about professional scientists in this conversation.

Originally Posted by TheBiologista

One of the criteria for passing a PhD viva examination is that the work has to be novel. By definition, one has to have innovated. You can't innovate without understanding the subject matter.

Absolutely correct.

In fact, the ONLY hard and fast requirement for the Ph.D. is an acceptable dissertation -- a significant original contribution to the discipline. Any other requirement can be waived. This is essentially a quote from the Dean of the Graduate School from years ago when I was in school.

Not only can you not do significant research without a deep understanding of the subject, you will not know what might be original unless you know what is and is not already known. That does not mean that you need encyclopedic knowledge, but you do need a solid grasp of the fundamentals and a knowledge of what is going on in the research community. Crackpots need not apply.

Read your blog on chiropractors, for the most part, am with your evaluation.
Am also impressed with the reasoning you bring to the subject and the way
you express it. Now, that does not only belong to the realm of a scientist, but
of the mind of a free thinker. With that in mind, your 'aside' takes a balanced
view, which I appreciate. I consider a scientist a person who is studying, or has expert knowledge of, one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
But, no matter the final qualification, scientists can, and do, get it wrong.
I am about questioning just that as a free thinker. What qualifications do I
need to grasp e.g. the concept of a gravity well in 3 dimensions? There is no
'well' as described, just a fabrication by scientists at the 1919 eclipse that
proved one of Aberts contentions in GR, and gave GR its validity.
Enjoy your post.
nokton.

Originally Posted by nokton

What qualifications do I
need to grasp e.g. the concept of a gravity well in 3 dimensions?

Do you feel popular analogies are a substitute for solid mathematics?

Hi Aphiolite, correct me if I am in error, the concept of a three dimensional
concept of spacetime as influenced by a large mass in free space is hardly
popular, indeed, little understood. Indeed the media, and even so called
science programes on TV, depict a gravity well in two dimensions. Bad science.
OK, Aphiolite, you in a spaceship orbiting a smbh, whatever orbit you put your
ship in, the appearance of the smbh is the same, allowing of course for its
rotation, point is, you will find no 'well', just a contraction of spacetime.
nokton.

OK, for scientists. A prof wants an assistant, gets it down to three. Gets them
in his room and shows them 5 caps, 3 white, 2 black. Puts them away,
blindfolds the applicants, then puts a cap on their heads, each has a white cap.
The prof takes off the blindfold and says, the one who tells me the colour of
their cap gets the job. No 1 put his hand up and said, I have a white cap,
how did he know?
nokton.

Originally Posted by nokton

Hi Aphiolite, correct me if I am in error, the concept of a three dimensional
concept of spacetime as influenced by a large mass in free space is hardly
popular, indeed, little understood..

Hi Nicktun,
Concepts of concepts? Such meta-concepts are often part of philosophy rather than science.
Three dimensions of spacetime? There's a novelty!
Little understood? Quite, which is why I wondered if solid mathematics might not be better than weak analogy.

Originally Posted by nokton

Indeed the media, and even so called
science programes on TV, depict a gravity well in two dimensions. Bad science.

Gravity wells in any number of dimensions remain an analogy. You seem comfortable enough to use analogies rather than math. That's fine. I just wanted to understand your limitations.

Originally Posted by nokton

OK, Aphiolite, you in a spaceship orbiting a smbh, whatever orbit you put your
ship in, the appearance of the smbh is the same, allowing of course for its
rotation, point is, you will find no 'well', just a contraction of spacetime.
nokton.

And Nuktan, your point is?

Hi Aphiolite,
You do me an injustice, if you were of science, feel your narrow
view of physics would preclude you from the mainstream.
Am somewhat amused by your lamentable and deliberate attempt to insult
me by mispelling my username twice, tut,tut.
So you can't grasp or understand the concept of a fold in spacetime, I can,
That is what understanding a concept is all about. Math cannot explain dark
matter, or dark energy, they are concepts at this time, grow up.
nokton.