Gleems Questions
Electrostatics list:
1/. "Gravity depends on mass, electric fields depend on charge"
KG's and Coulombs are directly interchangeable according to basic SI units.
No they are not, even if you try to use stat coulombs
1 statC = g1/2 cm3/2 s−1
Mass is NOT equal to charge
Now mass to charge RATIOS are used in electrodynamics but you cannot equate the two.
Kilogram is a unit of mass. A Coulomb is a unit of charge. There is no conversion factor between them. You might as well ask how many minutes are in a foot.
Electrostatics list:
1/. "Gravity depends on mass, electric fields depend on charge"
KG's and Coulombs are directly interchangeable according to basic SI units.
No they are not, even if you try to use stat coulombs
1 statC = g1/2 cm3/2 s−1
Mass is NOT equal to charge
Now mass to charge RATIOS are used in electrodynamics but you cannot equate the two.
Kilogram is a unit of mass. A Coulomb is a unit of charge. There is no conversion factor between them. You might as well ask how many minutes are in a foot.
Getting deeper every particle has charge, even the Neutron is a combination of equal and opposite charges to cancel each other out, but essentially all mass and density of it, depends on its charge content.
No mass-energy of protons and neutrons mainly comes from the strong nuclear force binding energy (over 90% of mass). You can convert mass into energy but NOT charge as shown with Stat Coulomb. The is no E=mc^2 equivalent for charge (Coulombs), because it is not the same.
Now the more charge you get the more energy, as its a directly proportional relationship, and E=MC^2 which brings us full circle.
Again, Charge is NOT the same thing as energy, and charge itself does not carry energy. Rather, it is the object, which also happens to have charge and its corresponding field, that can contain energy. The ACTUAL energy depends on the potential equation of geometry, positions, other forces present , etc.
A Joule is a unit of energy. A Coulomb is a unit of charge. There is no conversion factor between them. You might as well ask how many pounds are in a meter.
Not forgetting that 80% of the first part of Einstein's Special Relativity in 1905 was reverse engineering Maxwell's Equations to make them equivalent/applicable to mass.
80% is pretty specific , source please! You are just pulling stuff out of your arse.
No mass-energy of protons and neutrons mainly comes from the strong nuclear force binding energy (over 90% of mass). You can convert mass into energy but NOT charge as shown with Stat Coulomb. The is no E=mc^2 equivalent for charge (Coulombs), because it is not the same.
Now the more charge you get the more energy, as its a directly proportional relationship, and E=MC^2 which brings us full circle.
Again, Charge is NOT the same thing as energy, and charge itself does not carry energy. Rather, it is the object, which also happens to have charge and its corresponding field, that can contain energy. The ACTUAL energy depends on the potential equation of geometry, positions, other forces present , etc.
A Joule is a unit of energy. A Coulomb is a unit of charge. There is no conversion factor between them. You might as well ask how many pounds are in a meter.
Not forgetting that 80% of the first part of Einstein's Special Relativity in 1905 was reverse engineering Maxwell's Equations to make them equivalent/applicable to mass.
80% is pretty specific , source please! You are just pulling stuff out of your arse.
2/. "Electric fields and electric charges can be shielded gravity cannot"
You are neutralizing charge, not removing it. There is always background radiation in every experiment, no matter if you are miles beneath the earths surface or in the thickest mu-metal box, where there is moving matter there is charge. Even deeper you have the aether, or Zero-Point Energy which has more evidence it exists in the likes of the Casimir Effect, Lamb Shift, Vacuum Bifringence, Spontaneous Pair Production, Magnet Moment of the Electron and more recently the Muon. Meaning there is additional energies in the vacuum which our current theories in QM cannot calculate correctly.
Using QED (quantum electrodynamics) and Feynmann diagrams, Those quantum effects will all add up show a net zero electric field outside of a well made SEAMLESS faraday cage. Maxwells equations for dielectric materials WORK and are MUCH easier to work with. You don’t need quantum mechanics. Plus these are not the same thing, you are confusing electric charges, electric fields with quantum zero point energy. Not the same thing!!! These quantum effects are not electric. These energies are all measured in Joules which are "kg⋅m2⋅s−2". Not charge. Again charge is not the same thing as energy . This is a fundamental error and shows lack of understanding basic physics.
A Joule is a unit of energy. A Coulomb is a unit of charge. There is no conversion factor between them. You might as well ask how many minutes are in a foot.
You are neutralizing charge, not removing it. There is always background radiation in every experiment, no matter if you are miles beneath the earths surface or in the thickest mu-metal box, where there is moving matter there is charge. Even deeper you have the aether, or Zero-Point Energy which has more evidence it exists in the likes of the Casimir Effect, Lamb Shift, Vacuum Bifringence, Spontaneous Pair Production, Magnet Moment of the Electron and more recently the Muon. Meaning there is additional energies in the vacuum which our current theories in QM cannot calculate correctly.
Using QED (quantum electrodynamics) and Feynmann diagrams, Those quantum effects will all add up show a net zero electric field outside of a well made SEAMLESS faraday cage. Maxwells equations for dielectric materials WORK and are MUCH easier to work with. You don’t need quantum mechanics. Plus these are not the same thing, you are confusing electric charges, electric fields with quantum zero point energy. Not the same thing!!! These quantum effects are not electric. These energies are all measured in Joules which are "kg⋅m2⋅s−2". Not charge. Again charge is not the same thing as energy . This is a fundamental error and shows lack of understanding basic physics.
A Joule is a unit of energy. A Coulomb is a unit of charge. There is no conversion factor between them. You might as well ask how many minutes are in a foot.
3/. "Why don't objects of different electrical charge or magnetic properties fall at different rates"
So you have never heard of Boyd Bushman from Lockheed Martin who dropped a rock and a massive dual-magnet painted like a rock of exactly the same mass and in his many repeated experiments the dual-magnet ALWAYS fell after the standard rock? This was signed off as witnessed by many other scientists and there is video footage of the experiment on YouTube.
He is a crackpot that was exposed for taking a picture of a model alien / toy (probably) - below- and was discredited as a charlatan in every sense of the word. Where is the ACTUAL evidence that really happened anyway? Proof!! This is laughable you are dragging in Boyd Bushmann to your so called proofs.
**Because bushmans magnets were so incredibly large, by dropping them off of a multi-story building, possibly with steel beams, rebar, and other ferrite material, the eddy currents generated by the falling magnet was itself creating a drag or frictional force in the buildings structure, slowing it down
But his experiment was repeated very carefully here, check this out on the Action Lab Channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEA1FWLai-c
So you have never heard of Boyd Bushman from Lockheed Martin who dropped a rock and a massive dual-magnet painted like a rock of exactly the same mass and in his many repeated experiments the dual-magnet ALWAYS fell after the standard rock? This was signed off as witnessed by many other scientists and there is video footage of the experiment on YouTube.
He is a crackpot that was exposed for taking a picture of a model alien / toy (probably) - below- and was discredited as a charlatan in every sense of the word. Where is the ACTUAL evidence that really happened anyway? Proof!! This is laughable you are dragging in Boyd Bushmann to your so called proofs.
**Because bushmans magnets were so incredibly large, by dropping them off of a multi-story building, possibly with steel beams, rebar, and other ferrite material, the eddy currents generated by the falling magnet was itself creating a drag or frictional force in the buildings structure, slowing it down
But his experiment was repeated very carefully here, check this out on the Action Lab Channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEA1FWLai-c
4/. "Why do they all fall at the same rate?"
What experiments have you done/peer reviewed which have actually demonstrated this, as I am pretty sure in Einstein's relativity the Earth is coming up to meet the apple? Meaning the greater mass is doing the acceleration and the objects are "levitating" in mid-air.
This is demonstrated ALL the time. In the absence of other forces all things fall at 9.77 - 9.83 at the surface of the earth depending on where on earth you live. Now if OTHER forces are present like buoyancy, drag/air resistance, electromagnetic forces, etc, than they can fall at different rates, but when you account for all the forces, the downward acceleration due the earth is always 9.8 m/s^2. If you drop a feather and a steel ball in a vacuum they will fall at the same rate… ALWAYS. This has not been falsified. Where is your proof?
Do you even know how to calculate a center of mass for the earth and smaller masses on the earth? The earth is NOT coming up to meet the apple? The earth is six sextillion tons, the apple about a pound.
What experiments have you done/peer reviewed which have actually demonstrated this, as I am pretty sure in Einstein's relativity the Earth is coming up to meet the apple? Meaning the greater mass is doing the acceleration and the objects are "levitating" in mid-air.
This is demonstrated ALL the time. In the absence of other forces all things fall at 9.77 - 9.83 at the surface of the earth depending on where on earth you live. Now if OTHER forces are present like buoyancy, drag/air resistance, electromagnetic forces, etc, than they can fall at different rates, but when you account for all the forces, the downward acceleration due the earth is always 9.8 m/s^2. If you drop a feather and a steel ball in a vacuum they will fall at the same rate… ALWAYS. This has not been falsified. Where is your proof?
Do you even know how to calculate a center of mass for the earth and smaller masses on the earth? The earth is NOT coming up to meet the apple? The earth is six sextillion tons, the apple about a pound.
5/. "Electrostatic can be attractive or repulsive, gravity is only attractive"
So gravity makes anything with a greater mass attract anything with a lesser mass in its vicinity Hmm so in the real world we record the moon to be moving AWAY from earth by 4cm per year and the Earth-Moon system is moving AWAY from the sun by 12cm a year... Not only this but even the 2011 Nobel Prize was awarded for discovering that, EVERY piece of large mass moving AWAY from everything else, known as the Cosmological Constant or Dark Energy. This my friend is the repulsion you deny the net system has, however you would prefer to state that gravity is attracting everything to everything else and its unidirectional.
Well first we learned that when laser beams bounced off mirrors put on the Moon by US and Soviet missions showed that it is moving away at the rate of 3.8cm per year. So JUST the fact we know this debunks the moon landing nonsense.
AND this IS explained by our current model:
It’s driven by the effect of the Moon’s gravity on the rotating Earth. Tides raised in the oceans cause drag and thus slow the Earth’s spin-rate. The resulting loss of angular momentum is compensated for by the Moon speeding up, and thus moving further away.
Now with Dark Energy, that receding rate does not impact our inertial frame of reference. There is no evidence in our inertial frame on our earth or solar system that EITHER dark matter or dark energy impacts the laws of physics we have. They are important on large scales, but nothing that contradicts mass always attracting mass, again in our inertial frame of reference.
So gravity makes anything with a greater mass attract anything with a lesser mass in its vicinity Hmm so in the real world we record the moon to be moving AWAY from earth by 4cm per year and the Earth-Moon system is moving AWAY from the sun by 12cm a year... Not only this but even the 2011 Nobel Prize was awarded for discovering that, EVERY piece of large mass moving AWAY from everything else, known as the Cosmological Constant or Dark Energy. This my friend is the repulsion you deny the net system has, however you would prefer to state that gravity is attracting everything to everything else and its unidirectional.
Well first we learned that when laser beams bounced off mirrors put on the Moon by US and Soviet missions showed that it is moving away at the rate of 3.8cm per year. So JUST the fact we know this debunks the moon landing nonsense.
AND this IS explained by our current model:
It’s driven by the effect of the Moon’s gravity on the rotating Earth. Tides raised in the oceans cause drag and thus slow the Earth’s spin-rate. The resulting loss of angular momentum is compensated for by the Moon speeding up, and thus moving further away.
Now with Dark Energy, that receding rate does not impact our inertial frame of reference. There is no evidence in our inertial frame on our earth or solar system that EITHER dark matter or dark energy impacts the laws of physics we have. They are important on large scales, but nothing that contradicts mass always attracting mass, again in our inertial frame of reference.
6/. "Source of Electromagnetic attraction & how does it work if bulk matter is neutral"
The Principle of Least action is at play here, where all matter may be considered neutral, but if you apply an intense imbalanced positive charge to one side of you, it can rip of your skin or attract so much it physically embeds itself in your skin and burns you. This is called a differential potential which facilitate charge transfer, where your body is neutrally charged but can collect other charges (aka electrostatic shocks when you touch car) when you are near something else or in motion collecting charge from hitting particles. You can demonstrate this to yourself by just putting a fridge magnet on your fridge. If most matter is neutral then why does it defy the total sum of gravity of the whole of earth fighting against it? = Magnetised Charge/alignment.
This makes absolutely No sense. I doubt you even know what the principle of least action is let alone how to set up an action integral. The context you are invoking the principle of least action shows you do not understand it.
What does applying an intense imbalance positive charge have to do with anything? Yes if you apply a lot of charge you will get shocked and burned, but unless you are struck by lightning or stung by an electric eel, that is not happening naturally in the world. Electrostatics is usually only seen in daily life with things like static cling in your dryer, rubbing your socks on the floor, combing your hair with a plastic comb, etc.
Putting a fridge magnet on your fridge is simply showing that the force of magnetism is stronger than the gravitational force. So what? Again most objects are neither charged nor magnetized or have very very little of either or both. This is a really dumb comment.
The Principle of Least action is at play here, where all matter may be considered neutral, but if you apply an intense imbalanced positive charge to one side of you, it can rip of your skin or attract so much it physically embeds itself in your skin and burns you. This is called a differential potential which facilitate charge transfer, where your body is neutrally charged but can collect other charges (aka electrostatic shocks when you touch car) when you are near something else or in motion collecting charge from hitting particles. You can demonstrate this to yourself by just putting a fridge magnet on your fridge. If most matter is neutral then why does it defy the total sum of gravity of the whole of earth fighting against it? = Magnetised Charge/alignment.
This makes absolutely No sense. I doubt you even know what the principle of least action is let alone how to set up an action integral. The context you are invoking the principle of least action shows you do not understand it.
What does applying an intense imbalance positive charge have to do with anything? Yes if you apply a lot of charge you will get shocked and burned, but unless you are struck by lightning or stung by an electric eel, that is not happening naturally in the world. Electrostatics is usually only seen in daily life with things like static cling in your dryer, rubbing your socks on the floor, combing your hair with a plastic comb, etc.
Putting a fridge magnet on your fridge is simply showing that the force of magnetism is stronger than the gravitational force. So what? Again most objects are neither charged nor magnetized or have very very little of either or both. This is a really dumb comment.
7/. "Vectors with no magnitude don't exist, windvanes gravity?"
Didnt hear what you meant by this, but use a Scalar Field they are much better conceptually.
You are showing your ignorance about scalars and vectors here. Scalar fields (magnitude only) have only a number (no vector) at each point. Examples of scalars, Mass, Speed, Height, Temperature. A scalar field like the elevation map of the earth shows you the elevation at any point in space and time (x,y,z,t). Vectors have both magnitude and direction. Examples of vectors are force, velocity, acceleration, momentum, torque, etc. Vector fields have both magnitude and direction at every point. NOT JUST DIRECTION. Purely directional fields are not used in science. This whole downward bias only is total baloney. The downward acceleration IS due to a force and every force MUST have a magnitude (and zero is still a magnitude). Show me a vector with no magnitude in nature? That is show me a force or movement of ANYTHING that has direction only. This is a what a windvane is, showing you only the direction of the wind, but the wind itself most definitely has a magnitude AND direction as all vectors do!
Didnt hear what you meant by this, but use a Scalar Field they are much better conceptually.
You are showing your ignorance about scalars and vectors here. Scalar fields (magnitude only) have only a number (no vector) at each point. Examples of scalars, Mass, Speed, Height, Temperature. A scalar field like the elevation map of the earth shows you the elevation at any point in space and time (x,y,z,t). Vectors have both magnitude and direction. Examples of vectors are force, velocity, acceleration, momentum, torque, etc. Vector fields have both magnitude and direction at every point. NOT JUST DIRECTION. Purely directional fields are not used in science. This whole downward bias only is total baloney. The downward acceleration IS due to a force and every force MUST have a magnitude (and zero is still a magnitude). Show me a vector with no magnitude in nature? That is show me a force or movement of ANYTHING that has direction only. This is a what a windvane is, showing you only the direction of the wind, but the wind itself most definitely has a magnitude AND direction as all vectors do!
8/. "Why doesn't the force change by the grounds conductive conducting abilities"
It does change this is how we are able to detect metals, oil and water underground using radio waves. You will find there are certain petrification of sand by lightning called Fulgurites, which literally drags the sand up and fuses it. Now if that is not defying gravity and demonstrating there 100% is a difference and effect from this cause making a force change then nothing will convince you. Even deeper, the basic foundational method where we found the electrons charge, Millikan Oil Drop Experiment, the physical demonstration is defying gravity with x-charge making droplets of oil levitate with electrostatic charge, and in cases shot upwards with increases in charge.
So if you are admitting conductive properties do change and are admitting that the Electric field is varying than electrostatics CANNOT be responsible for the downward measured acceleration [referencing first sentence above] as we know this number is measured to only vary by .7% across the entire planet.
Fulgurites are no proof of levitation and can be explained with physics. There is a tremendous amount of energy in lightning and typically it has upstrokes too. Show me a source or citation that says Fulgurites defy gravity. If by defying gravity you mean like attracting paper filings to a charged balloon, no that is not levitation it is the electromagnetic force.
Nothing will convince me? All these things convince me of is that our current understanding of physics is accurate. And you guys cannot even output 9.8 m/s^2 from your model or draw a free body diagram to see what forces are REALLY at play in all your examples and silly experiments. Please watch my video on flat earth science debunked as I go into a lot of detail on examples like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zddxc9gr_H4
And no the milikin oil experiment did not show anything about defying gravity it showed that electrons are quantized and yes like charges can repel. That is not antigravity that is electrostatic repulsion from adjusting the potential difference or voltage. Same goes for your stupid explanations of the ionic wind devices and silly balloon experiments. You guys don’t understand physics, like AT ALL!
Milikin: Under the influence of gravity and air resistance, some of the oil droplets fall through a small hole cut in the top metal plate. When the space between the metal plates is ionized by radiation (e.g., X-rays), electrons from the air attach themselves to the falling oil droplets, causing them to acquire a negative charge.
By adjusting the potential difference, or voltage, between the metal plates, the speed of the droplet’s motion can be increased or decreased; when the amount of upward electric force equals the known downward gravitational force, the charged droplet remains stationary.
It does change this is how we are able to detect metals, oil and water underground using radio waves. You will find there are certain petrification of sand by lightning called Fulgurites, which literally drags the sand up and fuses it. Now if that is not defying gravity and demonstrating there 100% is a difference and effect from this cause making a force change then nothing will convince you. Even deeper, the basic foundational method where we found the electrons charge, Millikan Oil Drop Experiment, the physical demonstration is defying gravity with x-charge making droplets of oil levitate with electrostatic charge, and in cases shot upwards with increases in charge.
So if you are admitting conductive properties do change and are admitting that the Electric field is varying than electrostatics CANNOT be responsible for the downward measured acceleration [referencing first sentence above] as we know this number is measured to only vary by .7% across the entire planet.
Fulgurites are no proof of levitation and can be explained with physics. There is a tremendous amount of energy in lightning and typically it has upstrokes too. Show me a source or citation that says Fulgurites defy gravity. If by defying gravity you mean like attracting paper filings to a charged balloon, no that is not levitation it is the electromagnetic force.
Nothing will convince me? All these things convince me of is that our current understanding of physics is accurate. And you guys cannot even output 9.8 m/s^2 from your model or draw a free body diagram to see what forces are REALLY at play in all your examples and silly experiments. Please watch my video on flat earth science debunked as I go into a lot of detail on examples like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zddxc9gr_H4
And no the milikin oil experiment did not show anything about defying gravity it showed that electrons are quantized and yes like charges can repel. That is not antigravity that is electrostatic repulsion from adjusting the potential difference or voltage. Same goes for your stupid explanations of the ionic wind devices and silly balloon experiments. You guys don’t understand physics, like AT ALL!
Milikin: Under the influence of gravity and air resistance, some of the oil droplets fall through a small hole cut in the top metal plate. When the space between the metal plates is ionized by radiation (e.g., X-rays), electrons from the air attach themselves to the falling oil droplets, causing them to acquire a negative charge.
By adjusting the potential difference, or voltage, between the metal plates, the speed of the droplet’s motion can be increased or decreased; when the amount of upward electric force equals the known downward gravitational force, the charged droplet remains stationary.
9/. "Why is everyone not flying around in storms"
Because of the net effect of the magnitude, to levitate an average person would take about a million volts right beneath their feet. Certainly enough to kill them, but not enough to sustain them levitating unless that million volts is continually applied. I have had the fun experience of having my hands in a washing machine and someone switched the wrong switch and I was electrocuted and flung across the other side of the kitchen. If you think this was controlled and I could have just not flown back and just took it like a man, I beg you show me connecting themselves to 240v mains supply and NOT have a change in force also. I was not magneto and levitating around the house for the rest of the day fyi... I know how minds wander.
That explanation DOES NOT CUT IT , if the stated 100 V/m downward bias gives rise to the downward acceleration than WHATEVER that force is reverses directions. You cannot make things up to suit every contradiction of your model. Incoherent acceleration is DEAD, MCToon and I did a funeral service and annihilated this and all other I.D.A claims. See our video for more about this: https://youtu.be/fJDTgmE_RdA
Regarding your shock: Luigi Galvani first noticed that, if a frog's legs were given an electric shock, they would twitch, even if the frog was dead. Same is true in live humans - bigger muscles, bigger twitch. This is not levitation or antigravity it is your body and muscles recoiling (perhaps violently) from the tremendous current which makes it “seem” like the shock is throwing you back.
My Story: I was literally 6 feet from where lightning struck my house, and the intense energy seemed to throw me back a little. NOT UP which based on your model it should have, but away from the acoustic shockwave due to the lightning hitting so close to me. NONE of these things are antigravity, they area all various forces arising in different situations.
Because of the net effect of the magnitude, to levitate an average person would take about a million volts right beneath their feet. Certainly enough to kill them, but not enough to sustain them levitating unless that million volts is continually applied. I have had the fun experience of having my hands in a washing machine and someone switched the wrong switch and I was electrocuted and flung across the other side of the kitchen. If you think this was controlled and I could have just not flown back and just took it like a man, I beg you show me connecting themselves to 240v mains supply and NOT have a change in force also. I was not magneto and levitating around the house for the rest of the day fyi... I know how minds wander.
That explanation DOES NOT CUT IT , if the stated 100 V/m downward bias gives rise to the downward acceleration than WHATEVER that force is reverses directions. You cannot make things up to suit every contradiction of your model. Incoherent acceleration is DEAD, MCToon and I did a funeral service and annihilated this and all other I.D.A claims. See our video for more about this: https://youtu.be/fJDTgmE_RdA
Regarding your shock: Luigi Galvani first noticed that, if a frog's legs were given an electric shock, they would twitch, even if the frog was dead. Same is true in live humans - bigger muscles, bigger twitch. This is not levitation or antigravity it is your body and muscles recoiling (perhaps violently) from the tremendous current which makes it “seem” like the shock is throwing you back.
My Story: I was literally 6 feet from where lightning struck my house, and the intense energy seemed to throw me back a little. NOT UP which based on your model it should have, but away from the acoustic shockwave due to the lightning hitting so close to me. NONE of these things are antigravity, they area all various forces arising in different situations.
Electrostatic Gravity
Since mass-to-mass attraction would collapse a flat earth into a sphere, the flat earthers must pre-reject mass-to-mass attraction.
Some flat earthers propose that the downward acceleration is due to electrostatics. Though, they have never explained how an object with a net-neutral charge could be affected by this. Neither have they explained why the downward force is directly proportional to mass, not electric charge.
Flat earthers have presented a few papers to support their claims. Do these papers support their claims? Let’s have a look.
Example of Papers to Look at Gleem and Witsit Share
An Electrostatic Solution for the Gravity Force and the Value of G - Morton F Spears 2010
2. On the Classical Coupling between Gravity and Electromagnetism - University of Nebraska - Lincoln - 2015
3. Gravitation as 4th-order Electromagnetic effect - Universidade Estaclual de Campinas - 1995
4. The Electrostatic Model of Gravity - XII International Symposium on Nucleir in the Cosmos - 2012
5. Electrostatic Gravity Mechanism of Action Based on Dieletric Properties of Physical Vacuum and Physical Meaning of Gravitation Potential - National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University - 2016
6. Gravity as the Second-order Relativistic-Manifestation of Electrostatic-Force - RC GUPTA Unification of Gravitation and Electrostatics - Moi University
Problems with these papers at a glance:
1) They try to equate mass with charge yet we know particles that have mass but no charge;
2) Electron, Muon and Tau neutrinos have mass but no charge. Z boson and W boson. Higgs Boson.
3) They use faulty radius numbers for the electron z
4) They derive numbers for G that are not even accurate
5) Many are plagued with errors
Worst for flat earthers:
6) They assume a sphere
7) They do NOT deny mass attracting mass.
8) Some even support and confirm general relativity
Since mass-to-mass attraction would collapse a flat earth into a sphere, the flat earthers must pre-reject mass-to-mass attraction.
Some flat earthers propose that the downward acceleration is due to electrostatics. Though, they have never explained how an object with a net-neutral charge could be affected by this. Neither have they explained why the downward force is directly proportional to mass, not electric charge.
Flat earthers have presented a few papers to support their claims. Do these papers support their claims? Let’s have a look.
Example of Papers to Look at Gleem and Witsit Share
An Electrostatic Solution for the Gravity Force and the Value of G - Morton F Spears 2010
2. On the Classical Coupling between Gravity and Electromagnetism - University of Nebraska - Lincoln - 2015
3. Gravitation as 4th-order Electromagnetic effect - Universidade Estaclual de Campinas - 1995
4. The Electrostatic Model of Gravity - XII International Symposium on Nucleir in the Cosmos - 2012
5. Electrostatic Gravity Mechanism of Action Based on Dieletric Properties of Physical Vacuum and Physical Meaning of Gravitation Potential - National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University - 2016
6. Gravity as the Second-order Relativistic-Manifestation of Electrostatic-Force - RC GUPTA Unification of Gravitation and Electrostatics - Moi University
Problems with these papers at a glance:
1) They try to equate mass with charge yet we know particles that have mass but no charge;
2) Electron, Muon and Tau neutrinos have mass but no charge. Z boson and W boson. Higgs Boson.
3) They use faulty radius numbers for the electron z
4) They derive numbers for G that are not even accurate
5) Many are plagued with errors
Worst for flat earthers:
6) They assume a sphere
7) They do NOT deny mass attracting mass.
8) Some even support and confirm general relativity
1. An Electrostatic Solution for the Gravity Force and the Value of G - Morton F Spears 2010
Several Fatal Errors
Several Fatal Errors
1. Not a great result
2. Wrong Value Re
|
|
3. Leads to Wrong Value A (conversion factor from his electrostatic gravity between two electrons) to two general masses
A -- Fudge factor - ratio of 2 capacitances Electrostatic force between two electrons to gravitational force between any two masses.
Fg = A*Fge
Because Re is wrong, A is wrong!
A -- Fudge factor - ratio of 2 capacitances Electrostatic force between two electrons to gravitational force between any two masses.
Fg = A*Fge
Because Re is wrong, A is wrong!
4. Problem - Ratio of R's to equate to ratio of masses
WRONG
Constant A is the fatal error in the paper.
First think about the ratios on page 24 on your point 4: R1 / Re = C1 / Ce = M1 / Me You did catch the inverse relationship of the electron mass to the radius problem
WRONG
Constant A is the fatal error in the paper.
First think about the ratios on page 24 on your point 4: R1 / Re = C1 / Ce = M1 / Me You did catch the inverse relationship of the electron mass to the radius problem
|
|
Correct Answer would lead to NOT a constant but to a Value for G
Fg = Gs M1 M2 / r ^2 where Gs = 1.2180188 x 10^(-40) / [ M1 + M2 ]
In this corrected equation, the Spears gravitational constant, Gs, is NOT a constant but a function of the masses for which the force of gravitational attraction is being determined and differs in magnitude from the correct value by over 29 orders of magnitude and more for masses greater than a kilogram!
IN SUMMARY: The electrostatic nature of big "G" derived by Spears is utter nonsense. Following his derivation using the CORRECT EXPRESSIONS for the capacitance between two spherical objects and between two electrons, Spears's big "G" is not a constant but a function of the masses with a magnitude so incredibly far out from the correct value that one has to wonder if he purposely fudged this as a joke or really did not understand what it was he was doing.
Fg = Gs M1 M2 / r ^2 where Gs = 1.2180188 x 10^(-40) / [ M1 + M2 ]
In this corrected equation, the Spears gravitational constant, Gs, is NOT a constant but a function of the masses for which the force of gravitational attraction is being determined and differs in magnitude from the correct value by over 29 orders of magnitude and more for masses greater than a kilogram!
IN SUMMARY: The electrostatic nature of big "G" derived by Spears is utter nonsense. Following his derivation using the CORRECT EXPRESSIONS for the capacitance between two spherical objects and between two electrons, Spears's big "G" is not a constant but a function of the masses with a magnitude so incredibly far out from the correct value that one has to wonder if he purposely fudged this as a joke or really did not understand what it was he was doing.
2. On the Classical Coupling between Gravity and Electromagnetism - University of Nebraska - Lincoln - 2015
This study affirms gravity and is simply a theoretical setup to show coupling between gravity and electromagnetism. If AFFIRMS the model of gravity we currently have.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/physicsbatelaan/1/
This paper is dedicated to calculating the effect of gravity on an electrical field. This paper affirms mass-to-mass attraction, and Einstein’s theories of Special and General Relativity.
This study affirms gravity and is simply a theoretical setup to show coupling between gravity and electromagnetism. If AFFIRMS the model of gravity we currently have.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/physicsbatelaan/1/
This paper is dedicated to calculating the effect of gravity on an electrical field. This paper affirms mass-to-mass attraction, and Einstein’s theories of Special and General Relativity.
3. Gravitation as 4th-order Electromagnetic effect - Universidade Estaclual de Campinas - 1995
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812831323_0010
This paper is another attempt to unify electromagnetic force and gravitational force. This affirms that mass attracts mass, even if correct, this paper only offers an alternative source for mass-to-mass attraction in our reference frame.
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812831323_0010
This paper is another attempt to unify electromagnetic force and gravitational force. This affirms that mass attracts mass, even if correct, this paper only offers an alternative source for mass-to-mass attraction in our reference frame.
4. The Electrostatic Model of Gravity - XII International Symposium on Nucleir in the Cosmos - 2012
This paper is so dumb, I couldn't even continue reading it. A short list of errors that jumped out
1. The author seems to think that the centrifugal force is balanced by the electric force. NO! The electron is accelerating and the radiation formula would dictate it would VERY QUICKLY collide with the nucleus. Quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle is needed to understand the stability of the orbits.
2. Seems to think that electrons are in the neutron and are somehow involved in holding the nucleus together
NO! There are NOT electrons in the nucleus. The Neutron is two down quarks and one up quark (neutral) and proton is two up quarks and one down quark (+1).
3. He seems to think there is somehow charge left over, that is he says the proton and electron don't cancel each other... NO! Proton and electron have equal and opposites charges or our universe would literally fall apart!
This paper is so dumb, I couldn't even continue reading it. A short list of errors that jumped out
1. The author seems to think that the centrifugal force is balanced by the electric force. NO! The electron is accelerating and the radiation formula would dictate it would VERY QUICKLY collide with the nucleus. Quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle is needed to understand the stability of the orbits.
2. Seems to think that electrons are in the neutron and are somehow involved in holding the nucleus together
NO! There are NOT electrons in the nucleus. The Neutron is two down quarks and one up quark (neutral) and proton is two up quarks and one down quark (+1).
3. He seems to think there is somehow charge left over, that is he says the proton and electron don't cancel each other... NO! Proton and electron have equal and opposites charges or our universe would literally fall apart!
5. Electrostatic Gravity Mechanism of Action Based on Dieletric Properties of Physical Vacuum and Physical Meaning of Gravitation Potential - National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University - 2016
Click to access Hypothesis-of-the-electromagnetic-nature-of-inertia-and-gravity.pdf
Not only does this article agree that mass attracts mass, but it also agrees that the earth is spherical with a radius of 6.37×10^6 meters and it has a mass of 5.9×10^24kg.
Click to access Hypothesis-of-the-electromagnetic-nature-of-inertia-and-gravity.pdf
Not only does this article agree that mass attracts mass, but it also agrees that the earth is spherical with a radius of 6.37×10^6 meters and it has a mass of 5.9×10^24kg.
|
|
|
|
6. Gravity as the Second-order Relativistic-Manifestation of Electrostatic-Force - RC GUPTA Unification of Gravitation and Electrostatics - Moi University
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2173081_Gravity_as_the_Second-Order_Relativistic-Manifestation_of_Electrostatic-Force/link/551d311d0cf2a15336261142/download
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.physics/0505194
This paper hypothesizes that there is a unification between gravity and electrostatic-force. Similar to how electromagnetism and the strong force can be unified under certain conditions. This does not dispute that mass attracts mass. This paper agrees that mass attracts mass. Sorry, flat earthers, this doesn’t help.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2173081_Gravity_as_the_Second-Order_Relativistic-Manifestation_of_Electrostatic-Force/link/551d311d0cf2a15336261142/download
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.physics/0505194
This paper hypothesizes that there is a unification between gravity and electrostatic-force. Similar to how electromagnetism and the strong force can be unified under certain conditions. This does not dispute that mass attracts mass. This paper agrees that mass attracts mass. Sorry, flat earthers, this doesn’t help.
