Free Republic Browse · Search News/Activism Topics · Post Article

To: Physicist
I have a hypothesis about gravity. It could falsefied by showing that electrons have gravitational attraction for one another. Showing protons some gravitational attraction would not do it, as they have quarks with so opposite electric charge.

I suppose it could be confirmed by seeing if the strength of the gravitational constant falls within parameters suggested by the hypothesis. Here goes...

Gravity is a by-product of subatomic particles reacting to electromagnetic waves that pass through their "location".

There is a net difference in the "pull" force produced by an EM wave that has the opposite charge as the particle verses the "push" force produced by an EM wave that has the same charge. This is because during the minute time period that the EM wave of the charge is passing through the "location", the subatomic particle reacts to the event.

Consider; if a wave of the same charge passed through the particle, it would alter its "location" so as to move in the opposite direction of the wave. This motion would weaken its force of "impact" during the time of the event (wave passing through). I suppose this is like the Doppler effect on wave energy.

Now consider the opposite situation. A wave from an opposite charge moves through the particle "location". During the tiny life of the event the particle will be attracted to the source, so the relative motion will draw the particle into the incoming wave. This will strengthen the its force of attraction during the time the wave is passing through.

The force known as "Gravity" is therefore the net difference between the opposite verses the same charge of wave passing through a particle "location". The attractive EM force gets stronger as it passes through, the repulsive force gets weaker. This tiny difference explains why gravity is so tiny relative to the EM force, and why no anti-gravity has ever been found.

I am sure you get stuff like this all the time. If it is nonsense just saying so if fine. I won't be offended if you do not have time to explain why. Ahban

32 posted on 01/17/2002 6:40:04 PM PST by Ahban

To: Ahban
What? You've never read "Transgressing the Boundaries" by Paul Sokol? He proves, rather convincingly, that gravity is a social construct and an artifact of human existence. The quantum theory proves it. (I could give you the exact link so that you could check it out, but I'm too blasted lazy to walk a few feet to my library and pull out my copy of "Fashionable Nonsense").
33 posted on 01/17/2002 6:50:19 PM PST by JusPasenThru

To: Ahban
I have a hypothesis about gravity. It could falsefied by showing that electrons have gravitational attraction for one another.

Well, I didn't follow the argument, but it's simple to show that electrons have gravitational attraction. Electrons make up one part in 1800 or so of the mass of hydrogen, say, which is more than 2.5 times the fraction of the mass of uranium made up by electrons. All you would have to do is measure the ratio of inertial masses of a mass of hydrogen and a mass of uranium (you could do this with a torsion balance), and compare it to the ratio of their gravitational masses (you'd do this with a beam balance). The ratios would be measurably different. Archimedes might have used water and lead; the ratio of electron mass fraction would have been a bit smaller than 2.5, but he wouldn't have missed the effect.

36 posted on 01/17/2002 7:15:17 PM PST by Physicist

 Free Republic Browse · Search News/Activism Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794