Author Topic: A New Hypothesis in story form "Gravity is electric"  (Read 21610 times)


  • rocky planet
  • **
  • Posts: 7
  • EUreka?: +0/-0
A New Hypothesis in story form "Gravity is electric"
« on: January 29, 2011, 20:13:11 »
The Apple Didn't Fall

“Professor Marshal, what causes gravity?”

“Let's see, you're Troy aren't you?” The professor was always amused by the new freshman and their naive ideas of science. “The fact is, we don't know. No one has ever proposed a reasonable hypothesis that is consistent with all the things we can observe.”

“Yeah, but” Troy blurted in the time honored way that made the professor wince, “the textbook says, scientific laws must be true, universal, and absolute. They're the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

“If we don't know what causes it, doesn't that mean that all of science is based on an assumption?”

“Okay, normally we wouldn't have time to talk about such frivolous things as the validity of scientific laws, but since this is the first day, maybe a discussion will help me to get to know you better. If we're going to have a discussion though, let's do it right, by defining our terms. Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every massive particle in the universe attracts every other massive particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. We can measure the acceleration of a falling object like Newton's apple and it's 32 feet/second squared.”

At this point, Troy put up his hand, but the Professor ignored it. “When we observe the  planets and moons in the solar system, it's obvious that there's a force holding them in their orbits, otherwise, by another of Newton's laws-of-motion, they would fly off into space.”

Becoming impatient, Troy began waving. With a sigh, the Professor finally acknowledged him, “Yes, Troy?”

“I think we understand the basic grade school stuff.” Troy looked around to see if any of the other students objected. “What we don't know is how they determined what the mass is of the sun or the moon. There are three unknowns in the equation, the mass of both objects and the force required to maintain them in orbit. You can't solve the equation for all three at the same time.”

Slightly more impressed, the Professor elevated the age at which his lecture was aimed. “Of course, we can't prove what the mass is, but each planet or moon is affected by more than one object. The earth, for example, revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the earth. Each of the three affects the others. So we don't have just one equation with three unknowns, we have three equations with four unknowns.”

With a smile, Troy sprang his trap. “But how do you know the unknowns are the mass? Has there ever been an experiment where the mass of both the objects drawn together by gravity were measured directly? What if the unknowns in the equations represent something else other than the mass? How could we tell?”

“Actually, we couldn't tell, but no one has ever suggested any other property of the planets or moons that could be responsible,” the Professor answered blithely.

“What about the electrical charge of a body? If the charges are opposed, they'd exert the same kind of force,” Troy offered, refusing to let go.

Without so much as a by your leave, another student jumped in, “That's a really stupid idea. What about all the stuff that's neutral, it'd all go flying off into space.”

“Let's see, according to the seating chart, you'd be Charlie? Is that right? OK, Charlie, let's see if Troy can explain why that wouldn't happen,”

Like a kid in a candy shop, Troy burbled, “It's simple really. In an electric field created by a plasma, there isn't anything that's neutral. On earth, there is a voltage between the earth and the sky of about 100 volts every 6 feet so your head is negatively charged with respect to your feet and that field exerts a force. In the air, electrically charged particles can move around so the field we can measure is changing all the time. But in the solid body of the earth, the charges are fixed, so the positive charge would be greater and greater towards the center of the earth.

“The Neutral Charlie is talking about is where an atom has the same number of electrons as it does protons, but it doesn't really exist because the protons are in the nucleus and the electrons are on the outside. That allows the electrons of one atom to be attracted to the nucleus of another when they are closer to it and is what allows atoms to bind together into molecules.

“Even if you did have a neutral atom, it would still be attracted to an atom that didn't have enough electrons to balance its protons. But we aren't talking about an apple being attracted to the ground, that is very different than the effect of gravity. The force would have to be an attraction between everything on the surface of the earth and an accumulation of positive charge at the center of the earth. Isn't that right?” he ended looking smug.

“That's a good, Troy, but there's another reason why an electric field couldn't cause the effect of gravity.” the Professor resumed his condescending tone, “the force generated by an electric field is 10 to the 36 th power times more powerful than gravity and its force varies inversely to distance while gravity varies inversely in proportion to the square of the distance. That really is a very big difference. No matter where you are in an electric field, the force it generates is always the same.”

And then Troy asked the question that turned the world upside down. “So, under what conditions would the force of an electric field be indistinguishable from gravity? What if the field isn't uniform? What if the electric charge on the earth varied in an inversely proportional way according to the square of your distance from the center?”

Once again Charlie interrupted, “but then you're right back where you started from. Mass would simply be defined as being the property of a particle responding to the electric field instead of a gravitational field. It would still be mass, so nothing would be different.”

With a troubled look on his face the Professor responded, “Actually, if Troy's hypothesis was right, it would indeed turn the world upside down. The law-of-gravity is a law only if it is always true. If the force of gravity is caused by an electric field, the field could change and the law-of-gravity wouldn't be a law. The sun wouldn't be a nuclear furnace, black holes couldn't exist and the big bang didn't happen. For your sake Troy, I hope to God you are wrong, because, if not, you've just destroyed the life's work of more people than Galileo.”


  • rocky planet
  • **
  • Posts: 7
  • EUreka?: +0/-0
Re: A New Hypothesis in story form "Gravity is electric"
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2011, 20:28:45 »
Please pick it apart, if you can. Tell me what natural effect would be incompatible with it.

If not, suggestions for how the premise could be tested by experimentation would be welcome.


  • rocky planet
  • **
  • Posts: 7
  • EUreka?: +0/-0
Re: A New Hypothesis in story form "Gravity is electric"
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2011, 03:06:51 »
[Against]I'm not going to dismiss Troy's hypothesis out of hand, but would  like to know how he ties in the charge and magnetometer readings of the widely variant magnetosphere of the various planets of the solar system,  and the fact that, for electrostatic charge to be a replacement mechanism for gravity, this would have predictive effects with respect to the behavior of electric currents, magnetic fields, etc. on a solar system wide basis.

[For]------You are right, it does have the ability to predict a lot of things that are a complete mystery to astronomers. Google Wallace Thornhill and the Electric Universe for a list that the electric model successfully predicted and that the gravity or relativity models failed to.

[Against] For electromagnetic attraction to replace Einsteinium curvature of

[For]-------- The hypothesis deals not with electromagnetic attraction, it is strictly the effect of a pure electric field created by electric (stationary charges) distributed in a solid plasma. There are numerous effects of the diffuse (vacuum) plasma that saturates the entire solar system, but they are very small compared to gravity.

The reason why the Einstien model of space curvature is so successful is because the hypothetical curvature follows exactly the density of the electric field.

There is another effect that the electric field hypothesis explains that neither gravity nor space curvature can. That is the magnetic fields of every single body in the solar system. A magnetic field as large and powerful as that of the earth could only be created by a current and the only possible current is the negatively charged surface and atmosphere of the planet. Interestingly, the surface of earth and the plasma atmosphere move in opposite directions. The atmospheric plasma is called the jet stream and its contortions correspond with shifts in the magnetic poles.   -----------

[Against] space-time as an explanation for gravity, the new theory would have to be able to correctly calculate outcomes consistent with the entire body of Terrestrial and Astrophysical electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic observational data, but it would have to quantitatively predict heretofore unobserved phenomena, and the predictions would have to be verified by subsequent quantitative observation of said phenomena.

[For]It wouldn't because the hypothesis states that the density of the electric field varies in an inversely proportional way with respect to the distance from the center. Its effects are then indistinguishable from gravity.

The number of things the main stream science labels as mysteries whose explanations are simply apparent in the electric hypothesis is startling. From the missing solar neutrinos, to dark matter and red shift and even the behavior of comets, no rational person looking at all the evidence could avoid admitting it's a better fit.

But I can give you a new prediction. I predict that the speed of light will be found to change in an electric field in an amount that exactly matches it change as calculated by Einstein curvature model. I predict further that the speed of light isn't absolute and that the electric field is the ether through which it travels as a wave in the field. It appears to be electromagnetic, because the displacement of charges in the field create the magnetic component of the wave. This also explain a host of the quantum anomalies of light.-----

[Against] Incidentally, that is why the General Relativity description of gravity as space-time distortion, generated by mass, rather than the old Newtonian concept of a force, is now the accepted model for gravity. The more recent theory gave slightly different equations for calculating acceleration at each space-time point in a gravitational field, and predicted that even mass-less items, such as neutrinos and photons would be effected. These predictions were so startling at the turn of the Twentieth century that observers rushed to find ways to test them, and the astonishing discovery, that light is indeed bent by gravity fields,

[For] -------If light were a wave in an electric field, this would not even be interesting. It would have been obvious before it was observed. Incidentally, the theory also resolves the dual particle-wave characteristics of light because the wave transmits by moving charged particles in the field through which it moves.

[Against]was verified bye precision star position measurements before, during and after, several solar eclipse following Einstein's publication of general relativity, and the slightly different acceleration figures, and the light bending effect had to be included in pretty nearly every orbit and signal calculation in the world's space programs. Put simply, if the Einstein gravity model were not correct, to the limits of our instruments ability to measure, the Apollo astronauts would have missed lunar orbit insertion by an amount sufficient to abort any possibility of a successful landing, and GPS would have systematic errors in it's readings, on the order of 200-300 meters.

I expect we'll need a new theory of gravity when we start noticing discrepancies between the predictions of our current one, and what we observe. The fundamental principle of science is that if theoretical
> prediction departs from reliable, repeatable, observation by an measurable amount,(defined as larger than the experimental error of the observational technique) then it is time to revise theory, as the old one is no longer  sufficient.

[For]Ah, but the point of the story was how all of science collapses when one of the fundamental laws turns out to be merely a local phenomenon.