Thread: This is an idea I have had for a while

Sorry to everyone that read this before. The image I used was scaled down significantly on this site and I didn't notice. Here is the text version so you can read it!

I've been thinking more about something lately and if nothing else it's an interesting thought process to follow. First I think it's important that you know that I am no Physicist, Chemist, Astronomer, or Engineer but I like to consider myself a rational, problem-solver type person. I am hopeful that this information reaches people of those fields that might be able to help me understand if I'm wrong or test the idea if I'm right.


The basic idea I will be proposing and arguing is that there is no "gravity" but also not in the way Einstein's General Relativity Theory explains through the warping of space-time.


It started several years ago. I was watching an educational program about string theory. If memory serves it was the Brian Greene PBS special. When he was talking about how there are two conflicting sets of laws and briefly touched on General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. That got me thinking about why it is that they don't agree and what factors would need to be compromised in order for them to agree. Obviously I started looking into different principles and ideas from both fields of study. As I was contemplating the basic forces of strong and weak nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism I searched other parts of my mind that would relate to them. I studied electronics for some time and I remember several things about electricity and electromagnetism. I also studied chemistry for some time in high school and thought some of the information about bonds and electrons would really come into play while thinking about electricity since it is just the movement of electrons.


My theory started to build.


Chemistry tells us that atoms often share electrons; that covalent bonds are very common and is the type of bond that hydrogen and oxygen use to form water molecules. Quantum Mechanics' Uncertainty Principle tells us that we can essentially either know where a particle is or how fast it's going but never both. So those together build in my mind a picture of a water molecule where I can guess where the valence electrons are and in a quantum sense I'm both right and wrong. So I can envision that electrons are both exactly and never where you think they are. From there I start to think of the charges. When two hydrogen atoms bond with an oxygen atom it is because while oxygen is fully neutral in charge, its valence electron shell is only at 6/8 capacity. I have also heard that a lot of chemical reactions like this happen because electron shells "want to be full".


I don't want to spend a lot of time explaining this idea since it is decently well known how water molecules are formed. I do want to touch on the idea that while oxygen's valence shell is using either or both electrons from the hydrogen atoms, those atoms would be positively charged. Since we know electrons don't just hold still and come to a "locked" position where the valence shells of their atoms meet, it's safe to say that they are still orbiting, just sharing clouds. That's where I get the idea that for at least some portion of every second, all the atoms involved will be positively, negatively and neutrally charged. My understanding is that it's very rare to find atoms of any element that aren't bonded in some way with other atoms and obviously, sharing electrons.


When we think of gravity we always say "the more mass an object has, the higher gravitational force it will exert on other objects". The way I look at it is "the more mass an object has, the more times per second its atoms will be positively and negatively charged". The scale of charge differential would obviously get enormous when there was a lot of mass involved while staying less noticeable with less mass involved. Also, as with electromagnets, the force of a tiny 1 watt magnet would be almost completely unobservable when in the field of a massive 300,000 watt magnet. I believe this is true for all atoms as well. One atom near just one other would experience less force and acceleration than another atom near millions of others. We currently equate this idea to gravity and say that the "gravity" of a large grouping of atoms is what pulls them together to form stars. The larger grouping has more mass and therefore more gravity, but remember, it's likely the larger grouping also has a larger difference in charge. It could just as possibly be the difference in charge that pulls atoms together in space, which collect into groups making an object with a larger difference in charge and then collects up the rest within its magnetic reach.


It was about here that I started thinking; what about black holes? They are theoretically condensed into a small point but they have so much force, surely this proves general relativity. Then I thought the particles would obviously be forced together into nothing but energy at that point. Energy, which would have some kind of charge. It would be purely charge because that's what energy is. Thinking of it that way, it make perfect sense as to why matter would be attracted to it. We currently have no way of knowing what the center of a black hole actually looks like but I suspect if we ever find a way to measure it, we will find massive amounts of charged energy, not condensed matter.


Another part of relativity that I feel is better explained by Quantum Relativity is the part about what happens to matter near light speed. The speed of light is the maximum speed at which light and energy such as electrons can travel. Since no particle can move faster than the speed of light it only stands to reason that the closer you get to light speed, the more time it would take for electrons to pass from atom to atom. This would lead to the "front" atoms more easily sending electrons back than the "back" atoms would be able to send forward. This would result in a large collection of electrons "pooling" somewhere near the midpoint, increasing the mass to the effect that it would increase the empty space between electrons and nuclei and make the atoms themselves take up more volume while not necessarily having to increase their density. In essence this would change whatever matter was traveling near light speed into a massive inverse atom, because the nuclei furthest from the center would be temporarily positively charged while the center of the mass would be negatively charged due to all the electrons being "stuck" there.


All matter is made of atoms. Atoms are made of subatomic particles which are made of charged energy. Therefore I say with confidence that "gravity" as we call it now is actually the effect of a yet-to-be-calculated difference in charge between large groupings of atoms. I believe that determining if this hypothesis is true will be our next step in understanding our universe. If this idea proves true it will finally help mend the gap between general relativity and quantum mechanics, allowing us to better understand travel through space an time.

Your font is too small to bother reading

Thanks for pointing that out! I didn't realized the site scaled down the image I posted it in before. It should be readable now.

Moved to New Hypothesis.

Well, you have employed a lot of imagination, which is praiseworthy, but very little science. To explore these issues I doubt a BBC or PBS documentary can provide an adequate foundation. Here are a few points I would take exception to:

All matter is made of atoms.

Probably not. We don't know what dark matter is made of, but it seems to be real.

That's where I get the idea that for at least some portion of every second, all the atoms involved will be positively, negatively and neutrally charged.

The bond angle in water molecules is around 109 degrees. As a consequence water has a slightly positive side and a slightly negative side. This is responsible for a variety of phenomenon, not least of which -arguably - is life. Moreover, bonding can occur between hydrogen atoms on different water molecules: this accounts for the anomalously high boiling point of water, amonst other characteristics. It seems precipitate of you to introduce a radical new hypothesis for how the universe works when you have only a superficial understanding of the basics. I say this not to discourage you, but to encourage you - get the basics first. If it was good enogh for Einstein it should be good enough for us mere mortals.

They (black holes) are theoretically condensed into a small point but they have so much force, surely this proves general relativity.

They have no more force than that of the material from which they formed. You seem to think otherwise. I have absolutely no idea how you think this proves general relativity. Can you explain?

The larger grouping has more mass and therefore more gravity, but remember, it's likely the larger grouping also has a larger difference in charge.

Can you explain why we have never detected this charge difference?

etc.

I echo what John has said. And also...

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

When we think of gravity we always say "the more mass an object has, the higher gravitational force it will exert on other objects". The way I look at it is "the more mass an object has, the more times per second its atoms will be positively and negatively charged". The scale of charge differential would obviously get enormous when there was a lot of mass involved while staying less noticeable with less mass involved. Also, as with electromagnets, the force of a tiny 1 watt magnet would be almost completely unobservable when in the field of a massive 300,000 watt magnet. I believe this is true for all atoms as well. One atom near just one other would experience less force and acceleration than another atom near millions of others. We currently equate this idea to gravity and say that the "gravity" of a large grouping of atoms is what pulls them together to form stars. The larger grouping has more mass and therefore more gravity, but remember, it's likely the larger grouping also has a larger difference in charge. It could just as possibly be the difference in charge that pulls atoms together in space, which collect into groups making an object with a larger difference in charge and then collects up the rest within its magnetic reach.

But the net charge of something like the earth or the Sun is close to zero. So how can the force between them be caused by a difference in charge? And if, say, the sun were positively charged, then the Earth would have to be negatively charged. In which case, the moon would have to be positively charged. Which would mean the moon was attracted to the earth but repelled by the sun. We see no evidence of that.

Then I thought the particles would obviously be forced together into nothing but energy at that point.

Maybe. maybe not. We don't know.

Energy, which would have some kind of charge. It would be purely charge because that's what energy is.

No, energy is not charge. Kinetic energy does not have charge. Photons do not have charge.

I want to repeat wrlitzr that you have definitely displayed imagination and that is a key aspect of any scientist's armoury. However, as I hope Strange and I have demonstrated to your satisfaction, the idea just doesn't hold water. I do hope you will use your enthusiasm to study further. I am sure several members here could recommend specific books or sites to reference. Or, if you are in the UK, why not consider a science course or two at the Open University?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Or, if you are in the UK, why not consider a science course or two at the Open University?

Have you seen their prices recently? I had to give up on pursuing a degree as I couldn't really justify the cost. (What do I need a degree for at my age!)

Although they do have a lot of their course material online now. If you are disciplined enough to study it yourself. (Guess who isn't.)

When we think of gravity we always say "the more mass an object has, the higher gravitational force it will exert on other objects".

While this is true, mass is not the only factor that comes into play here. In fact, all forms of energy are a source of the gravitational field, including the gravitational field itself !

The larger grouping has more mass and therefore more gravity, but remember, it's likely the larger grouping also has a larger difference in charge.

Can you explain why we have never detected this charge difference?

etc.[/QUOTE]

I want to clarify that I'm not purposing that matter has a constant positive or negative charge. I'm saying that millions or billions of time a second, possibly more, that matter changes slightly in charge. This is why "gravity" is considered such a weak force. How strong would we expect a force to be that is flip flopping billions of times a second?

They have no more force than that of the material from which they formed. You seem to think otherwise. I have absolutely no idea how you think this proves general relativity. Can you explain?

I have been told by instructors at my local university that in a way, black holes and all gravitational fields prove general relativity and its concept of warping space-time in some way. That picturing space-time as a stretchable fabric with large depressions causing stronger gravitational fields is the best way to picture gravity. So knowing that black holes have very strong gravitational fields and very acute points of mass seems in a way like it might be evidence to warping the fabric of space time.

It seems precipitate of you to introduce a radical new hypothesis for how the universe works when you have only a superficial understanding of the basics. I say this not to discourage you, but to encourage you - get the basics first. If it was good enogh for Einstein it should be good enough for us mere mortals.

You seem to underestimate the amount of research and thought that went into this idea. If I said I had a full understanding of quantum physics and general relativity I would be lying. I'm sure this is the case for most if not all people. Any time during my thought that I hit a road block I would search the internet and ask everyone I knew for information. Including my instructor at the local university that had worked in the nuclear physics field for over a decade before teaching. What I would like most would be to sit down with some great physicists and discuss where my idea has holes and if those holes are really such or if they are just restated in a slightly less accurate way in another formula that I have yet to find. I imagine string theory would have many hypothetical equations that could explain some of this but I can't say that with certainty as that's not my current major.

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

I want to clarify that I'm not purposing that matter has a constant positive or negative charge. I'm saying that millions or billions of time a second, possibly more, that matter changes slightly in charge. This is why "gravity" is considered such a weak force.

You appear to be proposing that gravity is in fact an electromagnetic phenomenon.
Are you aware that those forces follow completely different laws, mathematically ?

But the net charge of something like the earth or the Sun is close to zero. So how can the force between them be caused by a difference in charge? And if, say, the sun were positively charged, then the Earth would have to be negatively charged. In which case, the moon would have to be positively charged. Which would mean the moon was attracted to the earth but repelled by the sun. We see no evidence of that.

Obviously the net charge is zero or this would have been the idea all along! Follow me on this. Electrons are moving essentially at the speed of light. My understanding is that a beam of light traveling at full speed could orbit the earth roughly 7 times per second at the equator. The earth is significantly larger than an atom so it only makes sense that an electron traveling at the speed of light would orbit the nucleus of an atom much faster than it would orbit the planet. The difference in charge would happen so fast that for billions of times every second every atom would be both positively and negatively charged but those charges would cancel out on the instruments we use to measure charge. We live very slow compared to the quantum world and our instruments would have no good reason to be able to measure the fluctuation of charge in at atom billions of times every second. We have been and possibly always will be interested in the difference in NET charge while talking about electricity and charge differentials. What I'm saying is that billions of times every second, the atoms of the earth are both positively and negatively charged, same as the sun, and the moon, and every other perceivable celestial body. They would make a net difference in charge that could only be calculated if we could measure the charge of every atom billions of times a second. That net difference in charge would be so small that it would take trillions of atoms to make for enough difference that we could measure a force of gravity from them.

Please read more carefully as I don't recall saying that one body is positively charged consistently while another is negatively charged. Also, I know how magnets work and I know that it would be preposterous to assert that the planets, moons and stars have some exact net charge that locks them in place. I do think it is rational to say that something we cannot yet measure but we have proven true in other places would make sense to look into.

Thank you everyone for your feedback, although some of it seems to be lacking basic conceptual understanding of the idea I'm proposing. Anyone interested is welcome to contact me through the site and I will be back again after work to see who else has found my post and found it interesting enough to leave some reply.

Last thing, I want to make it clear that dark matter is not the target I was going for and since no one seems to have a real understanding of what it really is, I'm definitely not asserting that this idea applies to that type of matter. I'm saying this idea applies to all types of KNOWN matter.
Thank you.

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

I want to clarify that I'm not purposing that matter has a constant positive or negative charge. I'm saying that millions or billions of time a second, possibly more, that matter changes slightly in charge. This is why "gravity" is considered such a weak force. How strong would we expect a force to be that is flip flopping billions of times a second?

Well, it isn't clear why the force would be any less just because the charge is continuously flipping back and forth. Do you have any mathematics to support that?

It would also require that the Earth and the Sun, and everything else in the universe, are flip-flopping in perfect synchrony so that they are always attracting rather than sometimes attracting and sometimes repelling. If they were not synchronized like this then there would either be a gradual increase and decrease in force (a beat effect) or the would just average out to zero.

Also, if they were flipping like this, they would generate electromagnetic radiation. We could detect this (we don't) and it would also mean that things were gradually losing energy (they don't seem to be).

I have been told by instructors at my local university that in a way, black holes and all gravitational fields prove general relativity and its concept of warping space-time in some way. That picturing space-time as a stretchable fabric with large depressions causing stronger gravitational fields is the best way to picture gravity. So knowing that black holes have very strong gravitational fields and very acute points of mass seems in a way like it might be evidence to warping the fabric of space time.

So you are saying black holes are predicted/explained by relativity as the warping of space time; the existence of black holes is evidence in support of this model? Can't argue with that.

Are you suggesting that gavity is electromagnetic force?

How do we know the difference between gravity and electromagnetic force? If mass is neutral then it isn't affected by electromagnetism?

I'm not suggesting that gravity and electromagnetism are the same thing. I'm suggesting that what we call gravity is a byproduct of the difference in charge that would logically have to happen more frequently and we can currently observe.

So you are saying black holes are predicted/explained by relativity as the warping of space time; the existence of black holes is evidence in support of this model? Can't argue with that.

I'm saying that I can see how that makes logical sense. I'm also saying that rather than view the universe as a fabric, we could instead view it as we currently do otherwise but replace the fabric with energy pathways and differential bonds.
As I said first thing, I don't have a degree in physics but I do try to pay attention to all the theories and information that is readily available thanks to the internet. I get information from people that know because that's how I currently have access to it. That's why I came here. I hoped that someone might be able to help me with the mathematics or at least catch me up enough to understand how I might be able to rework kinetic equations, relativity and electromagnetism in a way that I could start to present this in a mathematical way and find out for sure if there is a way to re-envision the math that wouldn't conflict with what we currently hold as the most accurate description of the universe. I'm not saying anybody is wrong, or that I'm better than trained scientists, I'm saying that I have an idea that I have yet to see any reason to think is inaccurate. From the responses I've gotten so far it's very clear that I haven't done an adequate job explaining my point because people are still asking questions that show that my original proposal wasn't as clear and concise as it could have been. I'm not sure at this point how to explain in a way that won't immediately link your minds to current principles. I think that it's entirely likely that we could build off of these current ideas and findings and try to see them in another way. Then, if it's impossible to find a method that would satisfy both my current hypothesis and our global current understanding of the universe.
I think that since we currently can't know the exact placement of every charge in the universe, or even in a given atom, we can't say for sure that gravity doesn't get its power in some way from changes in charge available from the subatomic particles in a given set. Take for example, an atom with an electron cloud that measures (for the sake of easy math) 1 angstrom or 100,000 fm in radius. That could be noted as r=1 x 10 ^ -9 (I hope I converted that correctly). Now take the speed of light as we all know, at 300,000m/s in a vacuum. Electrons, as I understand them, travel near that speed. So in any given second, an electron in an atom this size should then orbit its nucleus at 300,000m/s. Since the circumference of a 1 angstrom diameter atom would be roughly 3.1416 x 10 ^ -10 m we can then factor that using the speed of light and say that an electron would orbit that sized atom at about 94,248 (my initial guess was off) times every second (assuming I didn't make a math error in my haste). Cut that number in half and that's how many times every second we can consider an electron to be in one hemisphere or the other of a given atom, but not both. Therefore, 47,124 times every second, both halves of the electron cloud are positively and negatively inclined by whichever electron we are referencing. Since the speed of light is a constant, I'm saying that from the initial collection of matter into a planet, star, etc. these atoms turn themselves in such a way that their positive and negative charges correspond to one another. As reactions happen, and atoms break down they would be constantly re-orienting themselves in order to make more stable bonds. Nature is all about balance. When one side of an atom is unbalanced I believe, as is the case for magnets, that another atom of inversely corresponding charge would attempt to synchronize with the first and create the most balanced, stable bond possible.
How that correlates to gravity is that there would still be slightly unbalanced charges between the hemispheres of an atom at a rate of about 47,124 times every second. As with magnets, I assume that while one hemisphere of an atom is slightly positively inclined, the electron cloud in one hemisphere of another atom that is slightly negatively inclined would be more apt to bond with that first hemisphere due to the difference in charge between them. The most basic way to look at it is that every atom works like a tiny magnet who's polarity is flipped 47,124 times every second. These poles could potentially synchronize with the poles of other atoms in such a way that they can form a bond. As nature shows us every day, as balanced as it tries to be, there are always highs and lows in any system (the cause of wind anyone?). So I am saying that these likely would not be perfectly balanced in nature, allowing for some difference in charge between any given set of atoms. As the number of atoms in the set grows, so too would the net difference in charge, 47,124 times every second. Atoms of other groups would be inclined to line up with and go towards that rapidly flipping net charge difference and this would result in the whole of one mass being attracted to another mass.
Again, these numbers are quick estimates based on what I know and what I can find online in the handful of minutes I have to type this response. Please let me know if this helps to clarify my thought processes and if my estimations are lacking anything. I appreciate the feedback from everyone and keep it coming! It's really helping me refine my thoughts and research places that are lacking the specific attention they desperately need when formulating a hypothesis such as this.

Nonsensical word salad.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Nonsensical word salad.

How is that nonsensical? It's math and current theories supporting a new hypothesis... If you could back your claim with some evidence I would love to hear it but until then I doubt that you fully comprehended what was said.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Nonsensical word salad.

Alex is validation of one of the lessons in the bible.

'judge not lest ye be judged'

Alex is a self appoint judge of 'cranks'... yet in doing so he himself has become the biggest crank on this website. A lesson for all of us.

Alex you've gotton so cranky.. you can't even come up with fresh put downs anymore!

Come on brother, take a breather... you'll be back on form in no time.

P.S a salad is healthy, so if I mistook a compliment for a snipe, then please forgive me..

eh... I don't care so much for the childish comments. I came to this site thinking that "the science forum" would hopefully be full of people with above average intellect and hoping that they would prefer to talk about science rather than debate the semantics of salad... It appears it's hard to find intellect anywhere these days. Keep trolling if it's all that can satisfy you. I will be searching for people that can debate science and mathematics since I can hear about salad and the bible in literally millions of other places. Thanks for showing me that my quest for intellectuals will be tougher than I thought.

I do appologise.
Don't be put off, it's just me an alex... a lot of them are intellectual types.
I came here because I was intrigued by your posts title. I cannot help you so i'll be off.
Good luck with it.

P.S I came to the intellectual conclusion thats it's good to be 'childish' a while ago now.

It's alright, I understand the need to be childish. I just wish you might do it elsewhere. I hope to meet you on the forums again sometime and thank you for your decency and manners!

To everyone else... may we continue the conversation?

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

I'm saying that I have an idea that I have yet to see any reason to think is inaccurate. From the responses I've gotten so far it's very clear that I haven't done an adequate job explaining my point because people are still asking questions that show that my original proposal wasn't as clear and concise as it could have been.

I don't think the problem is that you haven't explained it well (obviously, it would be better if you could show mathematically that the force you are suggesting could exist, but I understand that isn't possible.)

Let's look in a bit more detail at this idea of charges in atoms. Firstly, its important to realise that thinking of electrons whizzing around or bouncing backwards and forwards isn't very realistic. Atoms (and molecules) are surround by a distribution of charge (which can take on all sorts of wacky shapes).

Now, in even a simple molecule like water there is an imbalance in charge distribution. The molecule is roughly V shaped with the oxygen in the middle and the two hydrogen atoms on the "arms" of the V. The electrons get attracted more strongly to the oxygen leaving the point of the V with a slight negative charge and the ends with a slight positive charge (I think I've got that the right way round; it's years since I looked at this stuff). This "dipole" effect causes weak bonds between the molecules and is one of the things that gives water its properties.

The important point is that once you are a few molecule diameters away, this force disappears almost completely; the slight positive charges and the slight negative charge balance. The only important thing over any significant distance is the net charge. Which is zero.

Exactly the same logic would apply in the case of your flipping charges. At any moment there would be a slight imbalance in charge. This could cause a slight local effect. But the overall charge has not changed. The net charge is still zero. The net force is still zero.

Think of a metal bar for example. You know that in a magnet, all the little magnetic domains in the bar are all aligned and so you get an overall magnetic force at each end. In an unmagnetised bar, those little domains, with their little north and south poles still exist, but they are randomly oriented and therefore the net magnetism is zero.

You would also require all atoms in all materials in the entire universe to be perfectly synchronised. We know that this idea of global, absolute time is impossible. Especially when things are in relative motion.

And still, no justification has been provided to believe this rapid polarity switching is needed, or that it occurs.

The other problem is that electric charge does not affect the direction of light. Not does it slow time. Nor does it ensure that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. How does it explain the anomalous precession of Mercury? And frame-dragging? And gravitational waves? Gravitational red-shift? Lorentz invariance?

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

I'm not suggesting that gravity and electromagnetism are the same thing.

That is not possible, for many different reasons - the most important being that EM and gravity follow different laws. Perhaps look up "Maxwell Equations" and "Einstein Field Equations", and you will see that these two are nothing alike.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

And still, no justification has been provided to believe this rapid polarity switching is needed, or that it occurs.

Are you saying that electrons don't orbit nuclei at the speed of light? Or are you perhaps suggesting that all electrons in the universe are so perfectly uniform that they wouldn't allow for femtosecond gaps in an electron cloud?

The other problem is that electric charge does not affect the direction of light. Not does it slow time. Nor does it ensure that the laws of physics are the same for all observers. How does it explain the anomalous precession of Mercury? And frame-dragging? And gravitational waves? Gravitational red-shift? Lorentz invariance?

Again, you're looking at it wrong. I'm not saying that a steady electromagnetic field will effect light. Although, looking into these current ideas again I did have an experimental realization. You could test my hypothesis by creating a high powered electromagnet that fluctuates from negative to positive roughly 50,000 times per second. I believe that, if tested, would be considered an artificial gravity machine. Also, my understanding is that gravitational waves have yet to be discovered even though they are mathematically predicted by general relativity. I believe this is because (as history tells us) there are many ways to formulate relations between given sets of numbers. For example, the traditional way of finding pi is . However we can also approximate pi to the first ten digits using the formula
As we can see, these are radically different ways of computing the same number within the guidelines of a working integer for general math purposes. With 9 accurate digits behind the decimal in the second equation we could use that to calculate most radians, unless they get so large that we could see the margin of error. This is what is happening currently with our ideas of physics. We have found equations that work for most things but that do sometimes give erroneous answers when applied to different parts of our physical universe.

I haven't spent much time applying this idea to the anomalous precession of Mercury, although at first thought the idea of "gravitational" fields from other celestial bodies influencing the planet's orbit would make some sense. Another idea I have on that is that possibly, since the sun is so massive, its fluctuating charge would have a ripple effect throughout the star making it harder for Mercury's atoms to catch up. That might make it have both an attractive and slightly repulsive effect on the planet, extending its precession period in the way that we have observed.

Frame dragging, under my hypothesis, would be that satellites in orbit around a celestial body would feel the effects of "gravity" differently from different parts of the body. Where the satellite first tries to synchronize with the charge of the planet would have more pull than other parts of the planet that are synchronized in a different way. That would act as a puny anchor point that would pull the satellite more towards the parts of the planet that it can be more easily attracted to.

Gravitational waves, as I understand them, are a mathematical phenomenon that have yet to be detected. Again, if the math is off at all, it could give answers that might not actually exist. Let's say hypothetically that the math is infallibly perfect, and that these "gravitational" waves do exist. The best explanation I could currently give under my current hypothesis is that it's not necessarily waves of gravity but a ripple effect (again) caused by the great distances that these charges would have to interact over.

Gravitational red-shift is again being looked at incorrectly in relation to what I'm proposing. We know that light acts as both a particle and a wave. Also, I'm sure it's safe to say that light has energy. That's all that is necessary to make the logic work out in my hypothesis. Light has energy, therefore when it passes by something with massive amounts of energy that fluctuate, it would be influenced by those differences in charges. That would cause it to bend around massive objects such as galaxies and stars the way we currently observe it.

I want to help everyone follow me on this. I'm NOT saying that gravity and electromagnetism are the same thing. I'm saying that electromagnetism is calculated by finding the NET CHARGE in a system. Gravity, the way I'm explaining it, would be calculated by the Hz CHARGE of a system.

Something that added a squirt of fuel to my fire was seeing that Lawrence Krauss (which I'm sure you all know is a very educated and seasoned physicist) stated in an article to CNN after the findings of the boson at CERN: "Equally importantly, the Higgs allows two of the four forces in nature -- the electromagnetic force and the weak force, which is responsible for most nuclear reactions -- to be unified and described by mathematics of the same type that describe the other two known forces, the so-called strong force and gravity." The article can be found here: Higgs and the holy grail of physics - CNN.comCurrent physicists that follow M theory apparently believe that similar math can be used when referencing all four known forces, which is exactly what I'm proposing, just with a slight twist (or maybe not since my understanding of M theory is not 100% complete).

That is not possible, for many different reasons - the most important being that EM and gravity follow different laws. Perhaps look up "Maxwell Equations" and "Einstein Field Equations", and you will see that these two are nothing alike.

Again, I know that the MATH is nothing alike and I'm proposing that the math is finding us great approximations that work in different scales more effectively, but as a whole is lacking the necessary correlation. It goes back to the pi example. There are MANY formulations in math that have us arrive at very, very similar answers, but there is only one that will be exact in all aspects. I'm proposing that while Einstein and Maxwell took great leaps toward finding these formulas, they are yet to be perfected and unified as they could be (and SHOULD be).

Let's look in a bit more detail at this idea of charges in atoms. Firstly, its important to realise that thinking of electrons whizzing around or bouncing backwards and forwards isn't very realistic. Atoms (and molecules) are surround by a distribution of charge (which can take on all sorts of wacky shapes).

I'm not claiming that electrons are constantly bouncing off of each other (especially since they have the same charge and would be repulsed by one another). I'm saying that because of their charge, they line up in different ways around the electron cloud which could possibly allow for gaps in the cloud itself. Those gaps would exist for such a short time that we currently couldn't see them, but I believe we could calculate them.

I ask you all, as seriously as I can, is it IMPOSSIBLE for charges and particles to interact faster than we can see? Is it IMPOSSIBLE for atoms to be attracted to each other by charges that we are currently aware of, rather than a a hypothetical graviton or warping of space-time fabric?

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

Again, you're looking at it wrong. I'm not saying that a steady electromagnetic field will effect light.

It won't. Nor will an alternating em field. But gravity does.

You could test my hypothesis by creating a high powered electromagnet that fluctuates from negative to positive roughly 50,000 times per second. I believe that, if tested, would be considered an artificial gravity machine.

No high frequency electromagnets have shown anti-gravity effects at any frequency.

I haven't spent much time applying this idea to the anomalous precession of Mercury, although at first thought the idea of "gravitational" fields from other celestial bodies influencing the planet's orbit would make some sense.

All those things have been taken into account. After several hundred years of trying different things, GR is the only thing to give the correct answer.

Gravity, the way I'm explaining it, would be calculated by the Hz CHARGE of a system.

"Hz CHARGE" is just something you have made up. It doesn't explain anything.

Anyway. You seem convinced you are right so I'll leave you to it.

I'm NOT saying I'm right. The positive assertions I'm making are only an attempt to communicate my point. I know that I made up "Hz charge" because there is never a term for something that hasn't been observed yet. That was the only way I could think to describe the idea I'm trying to convey. I think the first person to be able to follow the entirety of what I'm saying rather than nit-picking small parts, while stroking their ego, will understand the term Hz charge.
My question now is, why are you so sure of yourself that you can't even attempt to understand all of what I'm saying?
Also, where might I find information on frequency shifting electromagnets anywhere close to the ~50,000Hz frequency I'm saying would be necessary?

No high frequency electromagnets have shown anti-gravity effects at any frequency.

I'm not saying they'll cause anti-gravity. I'm saying the exact opposite, that they would EMULATE GRAVITY depending upon the amplitude and frequency of the magnet. If you read more carefully you might not get lost so easily...

It won't. Nor will an alternating em field. But gravity does.

EXACTLY! No electromagnetic field (as we know them) will effect light! I'm not saying that holding an electromagnet near a light bulb would bend the rays because nothing we can currently create in a lab will have nearly as much force as a black hole or a star nor will it have the necessary oscillations!
Something you seem to misunderstand is that I agree with general relativity in a lot of aspects, just not all.
As I've said before, this idea is NOT saying that quantum mechanics OR general relativity are WRONG! I'm saying that they are both incomplete and I think any good physicist would agree with that.

You're missing the main point. Stop getting hung up on how you currently understand electromagnetism and try to understand the point in its entirety. I'm NOT saying that gravity and electromagnetism are synonymous, only that they can be represented with similar MATH, the same as the most educated physicists of today are trying to work out.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

I'm not suggesting that gravity and electromagnetism are the same thing.

That is not possible, for many different reasons - the most important being that EM and gravity follow different laws. Perhaps look up "Maxwell Equations" and "Einstein Field Equations", and you will see that these two are nothing alike.

I'm not sure if you actually understand what your response means... To sum it up you said (since I said I'm NOT suggesting they are the same thing) it's "not not (double negative) possible that gravity and electromagnetism are the same thing." Take out the double negative and you're left with "it's possible that gravity and electromagnetism are the same thing." You guys really need to read more carefully! The reply you left there was riddled with fallacy my friend.

[QUOTE=wrlitzr;346778]I'm NOT saying I'm right. The positive assertions I'm making are only an attempt to communicate my point. I know that I made up "Hz charge" because there is never a term for something that hasn't been observed yet. That was the only way I could think to describe the idea I'm trying to convey. I think the first person to be able to follow the entirety of what I'm saying rather than nit-picking small parts, while stroking their ego, will understand the term Hz charge.
My question now is, why are you so sure of yourself that you can't even attempt to understand all of what I'm saying?
Also, where might I find information on frequency shifting electromagnets anywhere close to the ~50,000Hz frequency I'm saying would be necessary?

[COLOR=#333333]No high frequency electromagnets have shown anti-gravity effects at any frequency.

50 khz is a lower frequency than AM radio. An antenna is an electromagnet that flips at the frequency of the carrier wave, up to many gigahertz. No gravity.

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

You're missing the main point. Stop getting hung up on how you currently understand electromagnetism and try to understand the point in its entirety. I'm NOT saying that gravity and electromagnetism are synonymous, only that they can be represented with similar MATH, the same as the most educated physicists of today are trying to work out.

The math is not similar at all. Perhaps yous hould investigate the math used...

The current math isn't similar, no. But if it isn't possible (or necessary) that the math COULD be similar, then why are there physicists saying that we're getting closer to finding that? Also, you obviously don't understand electronics. How is an am transmitter the exact same as a high powered electromagnet? Who has made an electromagnet of any kind that operates around 50KHz (not way above or below) with more than 2000W draw? I've yet to calculate a precise number but it would have to be more than 2000W I'm sure. You would need to have enough power to at least somewhat overcome the (potential) Hz charge of the earth. People have been looking into making all kinds of electronics take LESS wattage, not more. So to say that an energy efficient am transmitter not turning into a high powered gravity machine disproves current research in M theory is very bold of you.

I'm withdrawing from paticipation in this thread as a member, which means this post is as a moderator.

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

I think the first person to be able to follow the entirety of what I'm saying rather than nit-picking small parts, while stroking their ego, will understand the term Hz charge.

The principle ego on display here is yours. Your assertions ignore basic physics. Tactful attempts to correct you have been rejected as failings on the part of the reader. And then we have this:

The reply you left there was riddled with fallacy my friend.

That was directed at Markus Hanke, a member who has demonstrated in many posts and threads that he has solid understanding of physics, a working ability with mathematics and a proficient ability to explain these to people with a wide spread of experience. I suggest you do two things: firstly, lose the attitude; secondly, properly address the point that the laws governing gravity and electromagnetism have been confirmed and validated to the nth decimal place and they are different. If you cannot do the latter this thread is heading for pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

My question now is, why are you so sure of yourself that you can't even attempt to understand all of what I'm saying?

To be honest, I thought I did understand at first. It seem that you were saying that the slight dipole effect caused by electrons moving around would create a charge imbalance resulting in a force.

I have tried to explain why, based on known physics, that will not work. If there is any part of my explanation that does not make sense or you think is wrong, please let me know. But, in summary:

- Electrons do not move back and forth (they are distributed)
- Even if they did, there are multiple electrons in atoms and molecules and there is nothing to make them all move the same way at the same time.
- Even if they did, the net charge doesn't change so the net force is still zero
- Gravity has effects that charge does not. And vice versa.
- We can block charge but not gravity.
- And so on ...

But now you have introduced this term "Hz charge", I am no longer sure I understand what you mean.

Also, where might I find information on frequency shifting electromagnets anywhere close to the ~50,000Hz frequency I'm saying would be necessary?

I see this has already been answered. But if you wanted to experiment, get a coil of wire, connect to a signal generator. Set the frequency to 50KHz. This is not far above audio range so I have probably injected something close to this, at fairly high power, into coils in the past. No odd effects noted.

I'm not saying they'll cause anti-gravity. I'm saying the exact opposite, that they would EMULATE GRAVITY depending upon the amplitude and frequency of the magnet. If you read more carefully you might not get lost so easily...

No electromagnets have been shown to have any gravitational effect one way or the other at any frequency or any power level. I guess the reason I thought "antigravity" is because there has been a lot of research by "fringe" scientists to try and prove exactly this. Electromagnets, spinning semiconductors, the whole thing. No sign of any gravitational effect.

It is an enormously popular idea (for reasons that are beyond me) and huge amounts of experimental and theoretical work have gone into it.

As I've said before, this idea is NOT saying that quantum mechanics OR general relativity are WRONG! I'm saying that they are both incomplete and I think any good physicist would agree with that.

That is true., But they wont be unified by inventing non-existent effects.

There are some analogies between an approximation of gravity and Maxwell's equations. But it doesn't show any equivalence between them.
Gravitoelectromagnetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

I'm not sure if you actually understand what your response means... To sum it up you said (since I said I'm NOT suggesting they are the same thing) it's "not not (double negative) possible that gravity and electromagnetism are the same thing." Take out the double negative and you're left with "it's possible that gravity and electromagnetism are the same thing." You guys really need to read more carefully! The reply you left there was riddled with fallacy my friend.

Then I don't know what it actually is you are suggesting, because in your OP you say this :

All matter is made of atoms. Atoms are made of subatomic particles which are made of charged energy. Therefore I say with confidence that "gravity" as we call it now is actually the effect of a yet-to-be-calculated difference in charge between large groupings of atoms.

This looks very much like you are suggesting gravity is an EM phenomenon - if that is not the case, then what exactly is the connection between a charge difference and the emergence of gravity ?

The current math isn't similar, no. But if it isn't possible (or necessary) that the math COULD be similar, then why are there physicists saying that we're getting closer to finding that?

You are misunderstanding this - physicists are looking to unify gravity with the other three fundamental forces at very high energies. That does not mean that gravity and EM, in our low-energy universe, are in any way similar. They are not, they're distinct phenomena.

Thank you. I'm sorry that I came off as egotistical and mean I was just frustrated when almost every time one of you would say something you would agree with me while saying you didn't agree with me. I just wanted you to read it carefully and you guys seemed like you didn't even follow the sentences you were quoting which was very frustrating. Thank you Strange for that link to gravitoelectromagnetism. I can't help but think this thread would have been much shorter had someone led with that.
John, no offense, but I don't care how many posts someone has participated in; if they can't even follow basic english syntax and base an argument on their own misunderstanding, then I have no respect for what they say in any argument they present at that time because it is fallacious from the time they display that they didn't even follow the idea they are arguing against. When he quotes me as saying that I don't believe that EM and GR are the same and then tries to argue that they are not the same, I cannot respect that fallacious argument.
I just wanted some hint that you guys were in fact following what I had to say and now that you have shown that and given me the information I needed to understand that I was wrong I'm very grateful. Thank you for all the time you spent on this and for correcting my misunderstandings. I hope I haven't offended anyone and now that I see that the idea I had was already looked into by physicists I am humbled and very thankful.

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

The current math isn't similar, no. But if it isn't possible (or necessary) that the math COULD be similar, then why are there physicists saying that we're getting closer to finding that? Also, you obviously don't understand electronics. How is an am transmitter the exact same as a high powered electromagnet? Who has made an electromagnet of any kind that operates around 50KHz (not way above or below) with more than 2000W draw? I've yet to calculate a precise number but it would have to be more than 2000W I'm sure. You would need to have enough power to at least somewhat overcome the (potential) Hz charge of the earth. People have been looking into making all kinds of electronics take LESS wattage, not more. So to say that an energy efficient am transmitter not turning into a high powered gravity machine disproves current research in M theory is very bold of you.

What an interesting subject you're presenting. Very brave too. Tell me, have you read any of Tesla's work? I think he actually experimented with the type of electromagnetic wavelengths you speak of.

Originally Posted by babinki

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

The current math isn't similar, no. But if it isn't possible (or necessary) that the math COULD be similar, then why are there physicists saying that we're getting closer to finding that? Also, you obviously don't understand electronics. How is an am transmitter the exact same as a high powered electromagnet? Who has made an electromagnet of any kind that operates around 50KHz (not way above or below) with more than 2000W draw? I've yet to calculate a precise number but it would have to be more than 2000W I'm sure. You would need to have enough power to at least somewhat overcome the (potential) Hz charge of the earth. People have been looking into making all kinds of electronics take LESS wattage, not more. So to say that an energy efficient am transmitter not turning into a high powered gravity machine disproves current research in M theory is very bold of you.

What an interesting subject you're presenting. Very brave too. Tell me, have you read any of Tesla's work? I think he actually experimented with the type of electromagnetic wavelengths you speak of.

I have read a little of his work. I have looked through a couple of his patents and done some research on what kind of ideas he had, but I've yet to find that he made a gravity machine. I do wish that we could have implemented his free energy ideas though, at the very least!

I do have one question for strange. When you said that electromagnets never have any type of anti-gravity effects, how can you say that with certainty when scientists have levitated water and organic life in a cylinder made of electromagnets? It seems like pulling something, that isn't made mostly of iron, nickel or cobalt, away from gravity using electromagnets does show anti-gravity effects. I could be misunderstanding, but this video sure looks like anti-gravity via an electromagnetic field.. Diamagnetic Levitation - YouTube Thanks in advance for helping me understand!

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

I do have one question for strange. When you said that electromagnets never have any type of anti-gravity effects, how can you say that with certainty when scientists have levitated water and organic life in a cylinder made of electromagnets? It seems like pulling something, that isn't made mostly of iron, nickel or cobalt, away from gravity using electromagnets does show anti-gravity effects. I could be misunderstanding, but this video sure looks like anti-gravity via an electromagnetic field.. Diamagnetic Levitation - YouTube Thanks in advance for helping me understand!

The electomagnet interacts with the magnetic fields of the atoms in the organism in question, thus this is a magnetic effect. It even says so in the description below the video.

Since every organism has atoms that have a tiny magnetic field, they used magnets that are 100-1,000 times greater than ordinary magnets, to repel the atoms' small magnetic fields.

So it is all about using magnetism, rather than any form of anti-gravity.

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

The current math isn't similar, no. But if it isn't possible (or necessary) that the math COULD be similar, then why are there physicists saying that we're getting closer to finding that? Also, you obviously don't understand electronics.

Actually, it's painfully obvious that you don't understand electronics, for in the next sentence, you ask the following:

How is an am transmitter the exact same as a high powered electromagnet?

An AM transmitter works by emitting an electromagnetic wave. Many AM transmitters operate at 50kW, for which the corresponding peak magnetic fields at the near-field/far-field boundary are of the order of mT.

Your 2.45GHz microwave oven generates peak fields that are perhaps 1-2 orders of magnitude higher (assuming low cavity Q), if I pushed the buttons on my calculator correctly.

Who has made an electromagnet of any kind that operates around 50KHz (not way above or below) with more than 2000W draw? I've yet to calculate a precise number but it would have to be more than 2000W I'm sure. You would need to have enough power to at least somewhat overcome the (potential) Hz charge of the earth. People have been looking into making all kinds of electronics take LESS wattage, not more. So to say that an energy efficient am transmitter not turning into a high powered gravity machine disproves current research in M theory is very bold of you.

I still have no idea what you mean by "Hz charge" so you'll have to work harder to use terms that are known to people other than you.

I should point out that your proposal suffers from a much more serious problem than a simple vocabulary challenge: Your oscillating-charge theory obligates all matter to emit radiation that is synchronous with the oscillation. Since we don't detect any such radiation, you are basing your idea on a mechanism whose operation should already have been detected. The absence of such a signature is fatal for your idea.

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

I do wish that we could have implemented his free energy ideas though, at the very least!

Although free energy would be nice, there are some very good reasons why it is not possible.

Originally Posted by wrlitzr

I have read a little of his work. I have looked through a couple of his patents and done some research on what kind of ideas he had, but I've yet to find that he made a gravity machine. I do wish that we could have implemented his free energy ideas though, at the very least!

Off the top of my head, I can think of only three or so energy-related proposals by Tesla, and none is both truly free and also practical. One was to work with his "magnifying transmitter" (big Tesla coil), which was to envelop the earth in an electromagnetic cocoon. Energy would be pumped continuously into the atmosphere (that's not free), and a would-be consumer of this power would use an antenna to gain access to it. The lack of meters on the receiving side is cited in apocryphal accounts as the reason J.P. Morgan withdrew funding for the project. However, the real reason is that Tesla had sold the project as a communications system. Once Marconi had shown success with far simpler gear, Morgan lost interest.

The other schemes, described by Tesla in his Century Magazine article, "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy," concern geothermal energy and a form of solar energy. He handwaved his way through both. Had he performed actual calculations on either of these proposals, he would have found -- quickly -- that there is nowhere near enough heat flux for geothermal energy to make a significant dent. His solar energy scheme appears even less practical. In both cases, a significant up-front capital expenditure would be necessary before the "free" part would kick in.

There are far better solar energy technologies today, so Tesla's ideas are even less attractive. His geothermal ideas have never made much economic sense, and that probably won't change significantly.