Coulomb Electric Gravity

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: bboyer, MGmirkin

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Coulomb Electric Gravity

Dear all,

I have just completed a short paper (9 pages) entitled :
"Coulomb Electric Gravity And A Simple Unified Theory (SUT)".

Everything is electric. There is only one force in the universe - no gravity, strong force,etc.

Gravity is a direct result of a small residual excess of the Coulomb attraction over repulsion. In order for such an electric gravitation to work, the concept of the neutron within the nucleus of atoms has to be removed and replaced with a further proton and a nuclear electrons. Mass conservation within atoms too need be revived.

With gravity the same as the Coulomb force, the fundamental of a single unified force theory is developed. There is no need of an independent physical dimension of mass [M]. And electric mechanics is developed only within [Length], [Time] and [Charge] with an electric mass with dimension [L]³ [C]¯¹. An electric F=ma is valid for electric mass.

Best regards
Chan Rasjid
Singapore.
http://www.emc2fails.com

ABSTRACT:
SUT is an aether theory. The fundamental substance of the universe is the electric charge, positive and negative. The aether is the substance of space, a superposition of two uniform charge density +ρ a and −ρ a . There is only a single universal force, the Coulomb electrical forces of attraction and repulsion. Gravitation is the result of a small excess of Coulomb attraction over repulsion. There is no neutron within the nucleus of atoms; nuclear electrons are introduced instead. Mass conservation is valid. SUT develops an electric mechanics with no need of a mass as an independent physical dimension. An electric mass defined as volume/charge of charged particles completely replaces the gravitational mass concept.

nick c
Moderator
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity

Chan,
Is this your own theory of electric gravity?

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity

nick c wrote:Chan,
Is this your own theory of electric gravity?
Yes. It is mine.

But already hinted to by Mossottii - and probably by many others after him - in 1830. Faraday and Weber did show good respect to Mossotti's idea.

At their time, it was not possible for them to derive Coulomb gravity. They don't have our knowledge that every hydrogen atom has an equal positive and negative charge. Coulomb's law is proportional to q1xq2, and we also need a force proportional to m1xm2. Only when neural body mass is proportional to charges pair (+e, -e, or 2e) can we get the full inverse square law proportional to product of mass and inversely proportional to distance square.

In my SUT theory, two bodies with the same mass (kg) has the same number of electron-proton pairs, i.e. proportionality between mass and electric charge.

Best regards
Chan Rasjid

MotionTheory
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity

Excellent attempt. However

Coulomb attraction and repulsion, is/are it/they 1 or 2 forces? Scientifically, a more fundamental force can't be define based on derived force(s) - same type of convolution as GR with gravity.

If gravity is an excess/net of Coulomb attraction over repulsion, thereby violate energy conservation fundamental.

...

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity

MotionTheory wrote:Excellent attempt. However

Coulomb attraction and repulsion, is/are it/they 1 or 2 forces? Scientifically, a more fundamental force can't be define based on derived force(s) - same type of convolution as GR with gravity.

If gravity is an excess/net of Coulomb attraction over repulsion, thereby violate energy conservation fundamental.

...
I am not to sure if what you brought up is valid.

May not there be two Coulomb's laws, one for attraction, the other for repulsion? Does it matter if we lump them together?

I have not found any violation of conservation of energy. When I move a 1 kg mass up a distance of 1 meter, the only work done is mgh = 1 x 9.8 x 1 Joule - the "gravitational" equivalent of electric gravity. This work comes from the difference of attraction less repulsion. There is no violation of energy conservation that I can see.

 The great like Wilhelm Weber - a greatest theorist -accepted the Mossotti idea of residual attraction over repulsion. If there are theoretical issues, he and others would not have treated the idea with the greatest respect.

Best regards
Chan Rasjid

MotionTheory
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity

Chan Rasjid wrote:
MotionTheory wrote:Excellent attempt. However

Coulomb attraction and repulsion, is/are it/they 1 or 2 forces? Scientifically, a more fundamental force can't be define based on derived force(s) - same type of convolution as GR with gravity.

If gravity is an excess/net of Coulomb attraction over repulsion, thereby violate energy conservation fundamental.

...
I am not to sure if what you brought up is valid.

May not there be two Coulomb's laws, one for attraction, the other for repulsion? Does it matter if we lump them together?

I have not found any violation of conservation of energy. When I move a 1 kg mass up a distance of 1 meter, the only work done is mgh = 1 x 9.8 x 1 Joule - the "gravitational" equivalent of electric gravity. This work comes from the difference of attraction less repulsion. There is no violation of energy conservation that I can see.

 The great like Wilhelm Weber - a greatest theorist -accepted the Mossotti idea of residual attraction over repulsion. If there are theoretical issues, he and others would not have treated the idea with the greatest respect.

Best regards
Chan Rasjid
Force direction does matter, so this isn't a unified/single force fundamental. Beside neither attraction or repulsion or gravity or so on a force because all are just affects. Force required co-interactors of equal opposite motions. To be THE unified force, it must define everything from scratch - i.e. can't use any pre-existing affects since they to be derived/based on this unified force.

Holding 1kg mass in hand, which is ~1 kg weight/gravitation-force attracting/pressing down, this is a perpetual force/energy scenario which violate energy conservation fundamental. Same violation is applicable to attraction between pos and neg charges. Even more troublesome to think, how a charge field perpetual radiate outward(+) and inflow (-), clearly violate energy conservation.

Using GR math trick, Coulomb attraction & repulsion can be map as convergent/stretch and divergent/compress space. Well obviously, none of these are forces, merely imaginative/magical extra 3 spatial dimensions - which can't move/displace objects and fields in actual physical 3D.

Boil(ok I maybe sound like a reductionist) down to most difficult part with your theory. You need to show the mechanism of how energy (or composite such as charge field) moves in aether. Then construct building blocks for foundation interactions for becoming THE unified force.

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity

MotionTheory wrote: ...
Force direction does matter, so this isn't a unified/single force fundamental. Beside neither attraction or repulsion or gravity or so on a force because all are just affects. Force required co-interactors of equal opposite motions. To be THE unified force, it must define everything from scratch - i.e. can't use any pre-existing affects since they to be derived/based on this unified force.

Holding 1kg mass in hand, which is ~1 kg weight/gravitation-force attracting/pressing down, this is a perpetual force/energy scenario which violate energy conservation fundamental. Same violation is applicable to attraction between pos and neg charges. Even more troublesome to think, how a charge field perpetual radiate outward(+) and inflow (-), clearly violate energy conservation.

Using GR math trick, Coulomb attraction & repulsion can be map as convergent/stretch and divergent/compress space. Well obviously, none of these are forces, merely imaginative/magical extra 3 spatial dimensions - which can't move/displace objects and fields in actual physical 3D.

Boil(ok I maybe sound like a reductionist) down to most difficult part with your theory. You need to show the mechanism of how energy (or composite such as charge field) moves in aether. Then construct building blocks for foundation interactions for becoming THE unified force.

Chan Rasjid.

MotionTheory
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity

Another point - Attraction/pull force can't satisfy Newton 3rd Law. Newton conceded to attract/pull gravity, whilst the essence of his law of motion is about pushing forces. Newton used inertia & momentum terms to depict affects/outcomes but never defined the mechanism of forces for these motions. Please show, mechanism of SUT force.

Pi sees
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 7:04 am

Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity

The fact that the Coloumb force and gravity are both inversely proportionate to squared distances between objects strongly suggests that they are causally related. IMO it stands to reason that every mass particle can "see" every other mass particle in the universe because each mass particle resides within the charge field of every other mass particle; it might even be the case that the universe IS the combined charge field of all particles, and that what we call space or spacetime is actually one with and physically inseparable from these charge fields.

Perhaps gravity is the tendency for objects to find the most stable inertial configuration within these interpenetrating infinitely-extended charge fields. As such, Frames of Reference might actually be the result of matter aggregations moving in certain directions and communicating, via their aggregate charge fields and ipso facto in direct proportion to their aggregate size, the extent to which other particles should conform to the same motions in order to meet the requirement to conserve energy (since motion and energy are only meaningful relative to other matter).

Gravity might therefore be related to the sum of the absolute value of coloumb force, rather than a net residual Coulomb attraction.

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity

Yes, gravity is a net Coulomb force: http://www.dipole.se

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity

Bengt Nyman wrote:Yes, gravity is a net Coulomb force: http://www.dipole.se
Currently, there is also the model based on the LeSage pushing gravity. There may be others.

Only time will tell when we investigate further and when more experiments are available on other features of gravitation.

Chan Rasjid.

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity

Chan Rasjid wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote:Yes, gravity is a net Coulomb force: http://www.dipole.se
Chan Rasjid.
Hi Chan,
If you follow the work in physics, like I know you do with my teachings on Quora, it is perfectly ok that you write endorsements and summaries, but you can not present existing sources as original work of your own, thereby violating international copyright laws and agreements.

Respectfully, Bengt Nyman
http://www.dipole.se

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Chan Rasjid wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote:Yes, gravity is a net Coulomb force: http://www.dipole.se
Chan Rasjid.
Hi Chan,
If you follow the work in physics, like I know you do with my teachings on Quora, it is perfectly ok that you write endorsements and summaries, but you can not present existing sources as original work of your own, thereby violating international copyright laws and agreements.

Respectfully, Bengt Nyman
http://www.dipole.se
Dear Bengt,

I don't exactly understand what this post of yours imply. I hope you could be specific with details so that I know what it is all about. My record shows I joined this forum Aug 2014 and you could search for all threads/posts I made here.

I investigate physics and would write papers when :
(1) I have a new viewpoint to express on some well known physics.
(2) I make an original discovery that I think is significant.

I'll let you know I don't have much of a background in physics. When I am faced with some questions on physics, it is normal that I google and get information from the internet. So I do read the works of many other authors and could have benefited from what I read. I am also aware of the more popular physics forums like stack exchange, researchgates, academia, viXra, NPA authors and their work. I seem to remember a "Quora" that could have appeared when I google.

OK. I just google and now know there is a Quora.com site. I now know why I am not too familiar with Quora.com. It requires a person to register before he could access the site and I never go for such sites. So if you have made posts on gravity theory there, I do not remember reading any of your such posts. If you too have come up with a Coulomb electric gravity earlier, of course, the credit of being the first naturally belong to you. As for me, it would just mean I made the same discovery independently, but at a later date. It has happened in the past that two scientists made the same discovery without knowledge of the other's work.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
http://www.emc2fails.com

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

Re: Coulomb Electric Gravity

Chan Rasjid wrote: ... of course, the credit of being the first naturally belong to you. As for me, it would just mean I made the same discovery independently, but at a later date. It has happened in the past that two scientists made the same discovery without knowledge of the other's work.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
http://www.emc2fails.com
Thank you for your endorsement and support.

Best regards,
Bengt Nyman

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests