Role of gravity @ subatomic vs macroscopic scale

[Phorce]

Hi,

I recently had some comments I made about Electric Universe challenged. "Are you a physicist" he said ! Accepting that (I'm not a physicist) I decided to go back to check some basic approaches of EU that I had accepted. Starting with gravity. I went to the Wikipedia page and found this paragraph ...

Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of physics, approximately 1038 times weaker than the strong force, 1036 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 1029 times weaker than the weak force. As a consequence, it has no significant influence at the level of subatomic particles.[2] In contrast, it is the dominant force at the macroscopic scale

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity (my emphasis).

This is where EU had always made sense to me as I could go away and check the text books to confirm that gravity is indeed the weakest force - http://michaelzfreeman.org/electric_uni ... ulez_Pawns

However I may be misunderstanding how that weakest force translates from subatomic to macroscopic. What is the explanation of the dominant physics science community for this ? I had assumed that its all a continuum from subatomic to macroscopic. I'm surrounded by subatomic objects, right ? Surely this is the whole point. What happens at the level of the subatomic is involved in creating the material Universe as we see it. So the weakest force at the subatomic is also the weakest at macroscopic .... or is it ?

[nick c]

Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of physics, approximately 1038 times weaker than the strong force, 1036 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 1029 times weaker than the weak force.

It seems that the forum software did not allow a copy and paste to show the proper exponents.
So:

1038 should be 1038

1036 should be 1036

1029 should be 1029

It changes the meaning of the quote by many orders of magnitude.

[jacmac]

Phorce said:

However I may be misunderstanding how that weakest force translates from subatomic to macroscopic. What is the explanation of the dominant physics science community for this ? I had assumed that its all a continuum from subatomic to macroscopic. I'm surrounded by subatomic objects, right ? Surely this is the whole point. What happens at the level of the subatomic is involved in creating the material Universe as we see it. So the weakest force at the subatomic is also the weakest at macroscopic .... or is it ?

You are asking the question that is at the heart of the matter. IMO.
The standard model people believe that gravity is the dominant force in the macro world
because "there is no electricity in space".
Therefore, there is no electromagnetic force in space.
Therefore, gravity is doing everything in space.

As far as I can tell that's about it.

Jack

[jacmac]

Two years ago I attended a "Book fare" at the University of Arizona.
There was a public presentation by an Astronomy Department professor.
When I asked about the electrical nature of the sun and the solar system she answered
"we have not found any batteries in space, there is no electricity in space ".
Jack

[Cargo]

Kind of OT but why not.

https://science.nasa.gov/missions/tss

examine the electromagnetic interaction between the TSS and the ambient space plasma

What they don't tell you on this page though is why the tether failed.

https://www.google.com/patents/US6116544

In the TSS-1R flight, the conducting single-line tether was severed after five hours of deployment. This failure was caused by an electric arc produced by the 3,500 volts of electric potential generated by the conductive tether's movement through the Earth's magnetic field.

The tether was 19,500 meters long and 0.8mm wide. This earlier related experiment is also very interesting.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19960002041

[Phorce]

Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces of physics, approximately 1038 times weaker than the strong force, 1036 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 1029 times weaker than the weak force.

It seems that the forum software did not allow a copy and paste to show the proper exponents.
So:

1038 should be 1038

1036 should be 1036

1029 should be 1029

It changes the meaning of the quote by many orders of magnitude.

Thanks !

Kind of OT but why not.

https://science.nasa.gov/missions/tss

examine the electromagnetic interaction between the TSS and the ambient space plasma

What they don't tell you on this page though is why the tether failed.

Can you explain the significance of that please ?

So I delved a bit deeper and found ...

Gravity seems stronger because it's always attractive. Of the other 3 interactions:

Electromagnetism has positive and negative charges, so it only manifests macroscopically when there is a charge imbalance.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... the-forces

Although the electromagnetic force is far stronger than gravity, it tends to cancel itself out within large objects, so over the largest distances (on the scale of planets and galaxies), gravity tends to be the dominant force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

and here it is ...

Even though electromagnetism is far stronger than gravitation, electrostatic attraction is not relevant for large celestial bodies, such as planets, stars, and galaxies, simply because such bodies contain equal numbers of protons and electrons and so have a net electric charge of zero. Nothing "cancels" gravity, since it is only attractive, unlike electric forces which can be attractive or repulsive. On the other hand, all objects having mass are subject to the gravitational force, which only attracts. Therefore, only gravitation matters on the large-scale structure of the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundament ... on#Gravity

I remember this being covered in some published EU articles. The charge is assumed to be zero because of the cancelling effect, so electric discharge plumes can't exist and so forth and have to be volcanoes. It's really just the state of physics/cosmology as it is. Some things they just don't know. For example ...

Particles mediating [Gravity]: Not yet observed (Graviton hypothesised)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction

So it seems my common sense is correct, as far as i understand this. Gravity remains the same weak force at the macroscopic scale as it does at subatomic. It does not "magically" become the dominant force. The apparent discrepancy is "explained" by assuming all electromagnetic forces cancel each other out because they both attract and repel.

[Cargo]

Try reading through this page.
http://www.setterfield.org/Plasma_or_Gravity.html

I like this part in particular in regards to 'no electricity in space'

at the 1999 Internation Conference on Plasma Science in Monterey, California, radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur announced that, after high resolution processing of data, from about 2000 clouds of so-called ‘neutral hydrogen’ in our galaxy, he found they were actually made up of plasma filaments which twisted and wound like helices over enormous distances. He estimated that the interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes. (Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 227; 1995, pp 187-198)

[ja7tdo]

Hi,

I wrote a post on another board.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16906

I guess there is two gravity. gravity in universe and on ground is different.
please read my post.

JA7TDO

[kodybatill]

The weak force may be Near-infra red inert gases - some of which are quantum sized, and often mistaken as isotopes or unique particle states. Near-infra red inert gases - which have unique electrical states - orbit every physical atom - and Muon in different numbers. They take positrons - which I must say - positrons are not anti-particles - they are complexes of colors around opposites of various sizes - like the black as seen in space in the night sky being certain sized Calcium/Barium Black-Blue type positrons - which there is a mechanism in nature for positrons being visible at some times - and invisible at others - some of it having to do with Acid Positrons and their effect on space. In reality - positrons are units of volume - and protons can in-fact contain them - such as when touching a neutrino or even electron neutrino.

For gravity - this means that it is composed of a wide array of similar but different energies and their nuclei - as also plasma can be complex, or simple. What if these Near-infra red inert gases link gravity and plasma - but yet keeps them separate?

I really think gravity is when all 9 main components of Muonic Infra-red units are all equal in their energy over a certain expanse.

[Cargo]

You lost me at quantum sized gas. Sorry.

[kodybatill]

You lost me at quantum sized gas. Sorry.

Here is a quote I have written in a book of mine about it - that I think can be proven very easily with conjoint effort - read the whole thing and we will at least be thinking about the same thing:

"Gases are when inner subatomic particles control the movement of the atom - solids are when non-subatomic particles control the movement of the atoms - plasma is when both subatomic and non-subatomic particles control the atoms - while liquids periodically touch all of these states. Because of this - if there are quantum or subatomic sized particles influencing matter - it would be more correct than not - to call each of those subatomic particles as being of each one of those 4 states of matter. This also means that gases like Near-infra red inert gases - and other element states - can exist on a subatomic sized level. Proof of this is that when all detectable air and atmosphere is taken out of a container - elements with mass are still recorded - and mistaken as isotopes and non-physical particles states."