The Electrostatic Model of Gravity

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
3,020
637
On the dance floor, baby!
Agreed. I found so many negative comments to make in the first three pages of the first article it's not worth listing them.

Thread closed.

-Dan
 
Jul 2017
11
3
Serbia
One simple equation and some images. You won't beat General Relativity with that my friend :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Pmb

PHF Hall of Fame
Apr 2009
1,579
334
Boston's North Shore
Agreed. I found so many negative comments to make in the first three pages of the first article it's not worth listing them.

Thread closed.

-Dan
Three pages? You actually got that far before stopping? I'm impressed by your open mindedness and am saddened by the fact that you gave the first page enough credit to get to the second and third. :)

I realized what I was dealing with by merely reading the abstract and a few lines of the first page.
 
Apr 2017
529
130
I have come across this theory before ... there used to be some excellent videos on youtube explain it , I can't seem to find them now .

This theory is not suggesting that gravity is electrostatic ... but that the cause of gravity has it's roots in the electrostatic attraction between electrons and protons ...A big difference!

No one on this thread has yet highlighted any errors in this proposition ...

I realized what I was dealing with by merely reading the abstract and a few lines of the first page.
Well here's the abstract....

Gravity discovered by Isaac Newton and defined as the phenomenon of mutual attraction of bodies,
dependent of their mass and distance between them, does not have until now a scientifically sustained
explanation regarding the generation of this force. According to atomic and nuclear studies, the gravity is
hypothetically attributed to a nuclear particle called graviton, particle that would generate the gravity
forces but whose existence was not proved by laboratory tests. From his studies and research compared to
the existing theories carried out on the hydrogen atom, the author Ioan Rusu discovered that:
• The static spatial field of the proton generates strong attraction forces for other electrons in the
vicinity of the atom
• By attracting the electrons of the atoms in the immediate vicinity the proton of the atom attracts in
fact the electron - proton assemblies, namely the neighbouring atoms, and thus chemical bonds
between atoms are created and molecules are formed.
• When the static field of a proton belonging to atom attracts distant electrons, meaning far located
electron – proton assemblies, the force generated is the gravity force which is much smaller than the
force of chemical bonds
"'


And the first few lines ...

"From the classical theory for the simplest atom, the atom of hydrogen, consisting of one
proton and one electron orbiting the proton, and considering that the proton imaginative
dimension is... "


Please indicate the mistakes
 
Apr 2015
1,089
252
Somerset, England
It's worth observing that modern Physics has moved on and doesn't work in terms of forces.
 
Aug 2010
434
174
And the first few lines ...

"From the classical theory for the simplest atom, the atom of hydrogen, consisting of one
proton and one electron orbiting the proton, and considering that the proton imaginative
dimension is... "

Please indicate the mistakes
Okay. To start with, that "planetary model" was long ago replaced by models that better match experimental results in which the electron has a "probability" cloud around the proton, not an "orbit". And I have no idea what "the proton imaginative dimension" could mean!
 

Pmb

PHF Hall of Fame
Apr 2009
1,579
334
Boston's North Shore
It's worth observing that modern Physics has moved on and doesn't work in terms of forces.
If you're referring to Einstein's general theory of relativity (GR) then its a common misconception that there's no gravitational force on bodies in free-fall. Einstein never said anything like that in fact and his theory of GR does not have that as an inherent component. However this is a controversial subject. The only true sense in which gravity is not a force in relativity is that its not derivable from a 4-vector.

In GR the gravitational force is what's called an inertial force. For details on inertial forces and examples from commonly used texts on GR which hold that such forces are "real" please see my webpage on this at: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/gr/inertial_force.htm

That webpage gives a quote by Einstein on the subject of inertial forces

Albert Einstein -That the relation of gravity to inertia was the motivation for general relativity is expressed in an article Einstein wrote which appeared in the February 17, 1921 issue of Nature
Can gravitation and inertia be identical? This question leads directly to the General Theory of Relativity. Is it not possible for me to regard the earth as free from rotation, if I conceive of the centrifugal force, which acts on all bodies at rest relatively to the earth, as being a "real" gravitational field of gravitation, or part of such a field? If this idea can be carried out, then we shall have proved in very truth the identity of gravitation and inertia. For the same property which is regarded as inertia from the point of view of a system not taking part of the rotation can be interpreted as gravitation when considered with respect to a system that shares this rotation. According to Newton, this interpretation is impossible, because in Newton's theory there is no "real" field of the "Coriolis-field" type. But perhaps Newton's law of field could be replaced by another that fits in with the field which holds with respect to a "rotating" system of co-ordinates? My conviction of the identity of inertial and gravitational mass aroused within me the feeling of absolute confidence in the correctness of this interpretation.
Even Steven Hawking seems to be confused about things like this. In an article in Time Magazine's person of the century issue he wrote
What if space-time--an entity Einstein invented to incorporate the three familiar dimensions of space with a fourth dimension, time--was curved, and not flat, as had been assumed?
Not only was it was Minkowski, not Einstein, who invented spacetime. but time, a one dimensional entity, cannot be curved because it requires a minimum of two dimensions to even speak of curvature.

He also wrote
His idea was that mass and energy would warp space-time in some manner yet to be determined. Objects like apples or planets would try to move in straight lines through space-time, but their paths would appear to be bent by a gravitational field because space-time is curved.
All paths taken by objects in free-fall, like an apple, move on geodesics - "The straightest possible lines". If he's talking about the spatial trajectory then that's also curved even in flat spacetimes when in either a uniform gravitational field or an arbitrary non-inertial frame in flat spacetime.
 
Last edited: