Electrostatic Gravity
Since mass-to-mass attraction would collapse a flat earth into a sphere, the flat earthers like Austin 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. Nor can they explain why things still fall in perfect faraday cages, or why the extremely widely varied daily, seasonal, altitude and especially thunderstorm variations in the electric field don't cause incredible effects like levitation commensurate to their variation, removal or reversal.
Since mass-to-mass attraction would collapse a flat earth into a sphere, the flat earthers like Austin 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. Nor can they explain why things still fall in perfect faraday cages, or why the extremely widely varied daily, seasonal, altitude and especially thunderstorm variations in the electric field don't cause incredible effects like levitation commensurate to their variation, removal or reversal.
Gravity collapses everything
Flat earthers that ascribe to an electrostatic of electric universe model present usually papers to support their claims like the Six I will be going over that Austin sent me. Do these papers support their claims? Let’s have a look.
1. Can't do math, so can't output 9.8 m/s^2
2. Use as many big words as possible and hope the listener thinks your smart and won't question you
3. Resort to silly electrostatics (or density) experiments as "proofs"
4. Attack Globe model
5. IF you are luckly like I am , you may even get a citation... and JACKPOT, I got some from Witsit via Gleem it appears
Flat earthers that ascribe to an electrostatic of electric universe model present usually papers to support their claims like the Six I will be going over that Austin sent me. Do these papers support their claims? Let’s have a look.
1. Can't do math, so can't output 9.8 m/s^2
2. Use as many big words as possible and hope the listener thinks your smart and won't question you
3. Resort to silly electrostatics (or density) experiments as "proofs"
4. Attack Globe model
5. IF you are luckly like I am , you may even get a citation... and JACKPOT, I got some from Witsit via Gleem it appears
**New** Ken Wheeler
First to set the stage for my motivation to really obliterate these papers, let's look at a couple emails from Witsit.
Overview of Problems with These and ALL Electric Universe (EU) Papers.
Problems with Flat Earth I.D.A.
1. None of these papers ascribe to downward bias or 100 V/m having anything to do with acceleration 9.8
2. None of these papers deny mass attracting mass, but differ in the mechanisms how it happens
3. ALL of these papers use the known and measured value of R, and affirm a spherical earth
4) Some even support and Confirm General Relativity
Problems with these papers in general:
1) Some try to equate mass with charge yet we know particles that have mass but no charge. Mass does NOT convert into charge at the most fundamental level.
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 Re
4) They derive numbers for G that are not even accurate. Debunks Witsits Claim.
5) Many are plagued with errors
6) none of them deny mass attracting mass even if that origin is related to electrostatic fields.
7) Any Electric Based Theory is EASY debunked definitively with a Series 81 Faraday Room and a sensitive Electrometer.
Problems with Flat Earth I.D.A.
1. None of these papers ascribe to downward bias or 100 V/m having anything to do with acceleration 9.8
2. None of these papers deny mass attracting mass, but differ in the mechanisms how it happens
3. ALL of these papers use the known and measured value of R, and affirm a spherical earth
4) Some even support and Confirm General Relativity
Problems with these papers in general:
1) Some try to equate mass with charge yet we know particles that have mass but no charge. Mass does NOT convert into charge at the most fundamental level.
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 Re
4) They derive numbers for G that are not even accurate. Debunks Witsits Claim.
5) Many are plagued with errors
6) none of them deny mass attracting mass even if that origin is related to electrostatic fields.
7) Any Electric Based Theory is EASY debunked definitively with a Series 81 Faraday Room and a sensitive Electrometer.
|
|
I am going to put links in the description to ALL these papers, so PLEASE Witsit, Gleem, any EU proponent, tell me how I am wrong.
1. An Electrostatic Solution for the Gravity Force and the Value of G - Morton F Spears 2010
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/mfspears/ElectrostaticSolutionforG.MFSpears.GED2010.pdf
Several Fatal Errors at a glance (all on pages 23-26)
1) Not a great result
2) Wrong Value for Re
3) Fudge Factor "A" wrong
4) Ratios between masses and radii wrong
5) Wrong Equation for Spherical Capacitance - Right Equation, G not a constant but depends on mass
6) All together leads to errors for G that are 29 orders of magnitude off and more
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/mfspears/ElectrostaticSolutionforG.MFSpears.GED2010.pdf
Several Fatal Errors at a glance (all on pages 23-26)
1) Not a great result
2) Wrong Value for Re
3) Fudge Factor "A" wrong
4) Ratios between masses and radii wrong
5) Wrong Equation for Spherical Capacitance - Right Equation, G not a constant but depends on mass
6) All together leads to errors for G that are 29 orders of magnitude off and more
1. Not a great result
2. Wrong Value Re -- It's over Before It even Starts
His whole paper is debunked on the first page
The classical radius of an electron has NOTHING to do with actual physical dimensions of an electron - the classical radius arises from the dimensions needed to explain the scattering of high frequency electromagnetic radiation and nothing to do with physical reality. What is physical reality for an electron anyway?
The classical radius of an electron is 3.35 times LARGER than a proton(which can be measured) yet the proton is 1836 more massive. Now if that is not a problem, what is?
Because protons are not fundamental particles, they possess a measurable size; the root mean square charge radius of a proton is about 0.833×10−15. In 2019, two different studies, using different techniques, found this radius to be 0.833 fm, with an uncertainty of ±0.010 fm.
We can measure the proton dimensions but not the electron. The electron is a probability distribution of charge that has momentum and an equivalent mass. This equation of ratios is wrong on so many levels.
Re = 2.8179 x 10^(-15) m classical radius of electron
Rp = 8.414 x 10 ^(-16) m actual proton radius
Re / Rp = 3.35 Electron is LARGER
Me / Mp = 1 / 1836 Proton is much more MASSIVE
His whole paper is debunked on the first page
The classical radius of an electron has NOTHING to do with actual physical dimensions of an electron - the classical radius arises from the dimensions needed to explain the scattering of high frequency electromagnetic radiation and nothing to do with physical reality. What is physical reality for an electron anyway?
The classical radius of an electron is 3.35 times LARGER than a proton(which can be measured) yet the proton is 1836 more massive. Now if that is not a problem, what is?
Because protons are not fundamental particles, they possess a measurable size; the root mean square charge radius of a proton is about 0.833×10−15. In 2019, two different studies, using different techniques, found this radius to be 0.833 fm, with an uncertainty of ±0.010 fm.
We can measure the proton dimensions but not the electron. The electron is a probability distribution of charge that has momentum and an equivalent mass. This equation of ratios is wrong on so many levels.
Re = 2.8179 x 10^(-15) m classical radius of electron
Rp = 8.414 x 10 ^(-16) m actual proton radius
Re / Rp = 3.35 Electron is LARGER
Me / Mp = 1 / 1836 Proton is much more MASSIVE
3. Leads to Wrong Value A - conversion factor from his electrostatic gravity between two electrons to two general masses
Let's call A what it really is, A 'Fudge' factor - ratio of 2 capacitances Electrostatic force between two electrons to gravitational force between any two masses.
Fg = A*Fge
1. Capacitance Between Two electrons. Because Re is wrong, A is wrong!
2. Larger Spheres: But also he is only using a first order approximation. This BREAKS DOWN WHEN THE spheres come close together. His equation ONLY works for d>>a
Constant A (fudge factor) is the fatal error in the paper.
A is Wrong
1) because Re is wrong
2) The Capacitances are first order approximations
Let's call A what it really is, A 'Fudge' factor - ratio of 2 capacitances Electrostatic force between two electrons to gravitational force between any two masses.
Fg = A*Fge
1. Capacitance Between Two electrons. Because Re is wrong, A is wrong!
2. Larger Spheres: But also he is only using a first order approximation. This BREAKS DOWN WHEN THE spheres come close together. His equation ONLY works for d>>a
Constant A (fudge factor) is the fatal error in the paper.
A is Wrong
1) because Re is wrong
2) The Capacitances are first order approximations
4. Problem - Ratio of R's to equate to ratio of masses
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 BUT the real problem is much deeper than that. Since when does the ratio of a macroscopic mass, M1, ever ratio to the electron in a LINEAR relationship to its dimensional radius?
**Scaling Problem**
R^3 Volume/Mass to R radius
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 BUT the real problem is much deeper than that. Since when does the ratio of a macroscopic mass, M1, ever ratio to the electron in a LINEAR relationship to its dimensional radius?
**Scaling Problem**
R^3 Volume/Mass to R radius
The assumption that the radius of the proton is P times the radius of the electron where P = proton/electron mass ratio is a huge blunder. As stated in my previous post, we do not know the exact physical nature of the electron and most certainly do not know its physical dimensions but we do know the actual radius of the proton as being,
Rp = 8.414 x 10 ^(-16) meter actual proton radius
Re = 2.8179 x 10^(-15) meter classical radius of electron
Re/Rp = 3.35
Spears assumes and shows in figure 1 of his paper that the (Spears) proton radius of the hydrogen atom (Rps) as used in this paper is 6147 times larger than it actually is.
Rp = 8.414 x 10 ^(-16) meter actual proton radius
Re = 2.8179 x 10^(-15) meter classical radius of electron
Re/Rp = 3.35
Spears assumes and shows in figure 1 of his paper that the (Spears) proton radius of the hydrogen atom (Rps) as used in this paper is 6147 times larger than it actually is.
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!
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
1. Study confirms the bending and warping of spacetime , like light only now with the electric field.
2. Coupling happens FROM the gravitational field so the force of gravity equals the electric field force
3. This coupling can be induced.
4. Only works with objects like electrons that have a SUPER HIGH charge to mass ratio. So will not apply or work on our scale.
5. This study validates mass attracting mass and how this influence can bend electric fields as it does paths of light.
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/
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=physicsbatelaan
1. Study confirms the bending and warping of spacetime , like light only now with the electric field.
2. Coupling happens FROM the gravitational field so the force of gravity equals the electric field force
3. This coupling can be induced.
4. Only works with objects like electrons that have a SUPER HIGH charge to mass ratio. So will not apply or work on our scale.
5. This study validates mass attracting mass and how this influence can bend electric fields as it does paths of light.
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/
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=physicsbatelaan
3. Gravitation as 4th-order Electromagnetic effect - Universidade Estaclual de Campinas - 1995
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812831323_0010
https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/gravitation-4th-order-p314-331%281995%29.pdf
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
https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/gravitation-4th-order-p314-331%281995%29.pdf
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
Download here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315334468_The_Electrostatic_Model_of_Gravity
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!
Download here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315334468_The_Electrostatic_Model_of_Gravity
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
OR
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0505194.pdf
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
OR
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0505194.pdf
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.
