by VMblast » Fri Mar 07, 2025 6:23 pm
As I see it wrote: ↑Fri Mar 07, 2025 5:12 pm
VMblast wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 11:42 am
PPT proposes that gravity is not an intrinsic property of mass but a result of electrostatic plasma pressure acting on a celestial body's electron cloud. Instead of mass “pulling” objects inwards, plasma exerts a force on planetary surfaces, compressing electron clouds and generating what we perceive as gravitational acceleration.
Kudos to you for challenging spacetime! Your external pressure hypothesis, although needing some tweaking for gravity, does hit the nail on the head for replacing the strong nuclear force! You have uncovered an approach to unification by challenging the assumption that the nucleus is held together my magical internal forces that overcomes the proton repulsion when close contact is made.
As discussed by other members here, the external pressure hypothesis, as considered for gravity, does not determine mass. To determine mass, consider that the pressure mechanism must permeate the atom's electron orbitals, all while NOT permeating the nucleons. What is left, is an "electrostatic pressure" (let's drop the "plasma" term for now) that permeates matter, and in doing so, no longer acts as a kinetic or collision based pressure on an outside surface, but instead acts electrostatically - a non-contact, and repulsion based pressure mechanism that works harmoniously with the electron orbitals.
To continue with the strong nuclear force discussion, the non-contact mechanism can be modeled as a kinetic/collision mechanism (at the nucleus level in this case), as we are only dealing with the nucleons and the electrostatic pressure (ie, no electron orbitals are involved). So, a straight forward pressure analogy will work. Imagine taking some golf ball sized oil-based modeling clay deep into the ocean to a depth where any variations in sphericity is somewhat corrected by the extreme pressure. The clay spheres (let's assume perfect buoyancy) just 'hang' in the water where they are placed - they don't attract nor repel, they just do nothing (they are neutrons in this example). Now cause a slight collision of two spheres. When a sufficient contact area is created between the two, where all water has been expelled, the remaining surface area pressure will cause the two spheres to 'glom' together. (For two protons, just use a collision velocity sufficient to form a 'kiss' contact without a bounce.)
Again, kudos to you for challenging spacetime, and developing an alternative mechanism to the strong nuclear force!
Continue to challenge the "gravity attracts" assumption, you're on the right path - challenge next the "we have no clue what dark energy is or where it comes from". (Consider dark energy = the aether (that is not supposed to exist) = zero point energy, ie, challenge the no aether assumption)
Challenge also charge neutrality...
Ask your AI the following question (try several as some can be very hardcore traditionalists, LOL), and let's continue the conversation.
"Within the framework of emergent gravity, could dark energy act not only as a repulsive force driving cosmic expansion but also exert a localized repulsive 'push gravity,' with the universe's large-scale structure effectively functioning as a 'cosmological container' for this pressure?"
I hear you. And I get it, you're making fun of me, which I kind of disserved, so its not a problem, I'll take it.
Yes, in some sense it is a tall claim...but that does not invalidate it. And yes, I did my theory and research with the assistance of scientific AI, which ofc makes a ton of mistakes (believe me I had a ton of headache because of that).
Even if your explanation about nuclear forces at work on the atomic level are true, what is than puzzling on my end is how does my equation work, it does give proper predicitons (yes so I claim), and without use of mass (as known in the Newtonian_Einstein world). I am still in disbelief, so I do not deny that I could be just a walking laghuing stock. I rechecked numerous time that equation (now updated and refined) and with the right observed data plugged in, it gives correct number, to the range of about 1% error. I covered all in my paper that I work on atm. So I dont know, if I made a mistake, thats fine I except being a clown, but if true, than I have something to give to the world at large.
PS -atm I'm just focused on this PPT core mechanics, which in paper include only gravity prediction and gas giants solid surface reverse-engineer diameter prediction. There are ton of other stuff that I touched during my research and superficially went through based on PPT, and if its
true, that opens a ton of cans with a ton of worms - I'll give a hint: if "true" ofc, ftl is possible to the number of 100x+ of light barrier speed (ofc with a TON of energy needed, but not out of the reason), also communication to Jupiter one way 4min, round-trip 8min, One-Way communication (Earth → Alpha Centauri) - 16days. Yes I know how that sound, no need for eye rolls. From this point maybe it would be better if PPT is totally wrong.
[quote="As I see it" post_id=11521 time=1741367555 user_id=1000000371]
[quote=VMblast post_id=11467 time=1740397369 user_id=1000000411]
PPT proposes that gravity is not an intrinsic property of mass but a result of electrostatic plasma pressure acting on a celestial body's electron cloud. Instead of mass “pulling” objects inwards, plasma exerts a force on planetary surfaces, compressing electron clouds and generating what we perceive as gravitational acceleration.
[/quote]
Kudos to you for challenging spacetime! Your external pressure hypothesis, although needing some tweaking for gravity, does hit the nail on the head for replacing the strong nuclear force! You have uncovered an approach to unification by challenging the assumption that the nucleus is held together my magical internal forces that overcomes the proton repulsion when close contact is made.
As discussed by other members here, the external pressure hypothesis, as considered for gravity, does not determine mass. To determine mass, consider that the pressure mechanism must permeate the atom's electron orbitals, all while NOT permeating the nucleons. What is left, is an "electrostatic pressure" (let's drop the "plasma" term for now) that permeates matter, and in doing so, no longer acts as a kinetic or collision based pressure on an outside surface, but instead acts electrostatically - a non-contact, and repulsion based pressure mechanism that works harmoniously with the electron orbitals.
To continue with the strong nuclear force discussion, the non-contact mechanism can be modeled as a kinetic/collision mechanism (at the nucleus level in this case), as we are only dealing with the nucleons and the electrostatic pressure (ie, no electron orbitals are involved). So, a straight forward pressure analogy will work. Imagine taking some golf ball sized oil-based modeling clay deep into the ocean to a depth where any variations in sphericity is somewhat corrected by the extreme pressure. The clay spheres (let's assume perfect buoyancy) just 'hang' in the water where they are placed - they don't attract nor repel, they just do nothing (they are neutrons in this example). Now cause a slight collision of two spheres. When a sufficient contact area is created between the two, where all water has been expelled, the remaining surface area pressure will cause the two spheres to 'glom' together. (For two protons, just use a collision velocity sufficient to form a 'kiss' contact without a bounce.)
Again, kudos to you for challenging spacetime, and developing an alternative mechanism to the strong nuclear force!
Continue to challenge the "gravity attracts" assumption, you're on the right path - challenge next the "we have no clue what dark energy is or where it comes from". (Consider dark energy = the aether (that is not supposed to exist) = zero point energy, ie, challenge the no aether assumption)
Challenge also charge neutrality...
Ask your AI the following question (try several as some can be very hardcore traditionalists, LOL), and let's continue the conversation.
[i][b]"Within the framework of emergent gravity, could dark energy act not only as a repulsive force driving cosmic expansion but also exert a localized repulsive 'push gravity,' with the universe's large-scale structure effectively functioning as a 'cosmological container' for this pressure?"[/b][/i]
[/quote]
I hear you. And I get it, you're making fun of me, which I kind of disserved, so its not a problem, I'll take it.
Yes, in some sense it is a tall claim...but that does not invalidate it. And yes, I did my theory and research with the assistance of scientific AI, which ofc makes a ton of mistakes (believe me I had a ton of headache because of that).
Even if your explanation about nuclear forces at work on the atomic level are true, what is than puzzling on my end is how does my equation work, it does give proper predicitons (yes so I claim), and without use of mass (as known in the Newtonian_Einstein world). I am still in disbelief, so I do not deny that I could be just a walking laghuing stock. I rechecked numerous time that equation (now updated and refined) and with the right observed data plugged in, it gives correct number, to the range of about 1% error. I covered all in my paper that I work on atm. So I dont know, if I made a mistake, thats fine I except being a clown, but if true, than I have something to give to the world at large.
PS -atm I'm just focused on this PPT core mechanics, which in paper include only gravity prediction and gas giants solid surface reverse-engineer diameter prediction. There are ton of other stuff that I touched during my research and superficially went through based on PPT, and if its [i]true[/i], that opens a ton of cans with a ton of worms - I'll give a hint: if "true" ofc, ftl is possible to the number of 100x+ of light barrier speed (ofc with a TON of energy needed, but not out of the reason), also communication to Jupiter one way 4min, round-trip 8min, One-Way communication (Earth → Alpha Centauri) - 16days. Yes I know how that sound, no need for eye rolls. From this point maybe it would be better if PPT is totally wrong.