- #36
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,256
- 0
Originally posted by Nigel
This is an interesting claim. J.J. Thomson measured the charge-to-mass ratio of the electron with something which is very similar to a vacuum TV picture tube.
The mass he measured was inertial, not gravitational. Some people in physics jump to conclusions too easily, and I like the fact that you do not.
When you say "electrons do not have gravity" you are making an ambiguous case, though. Do you believe:
1. That electrons are not affected by the gravity of another mass?
2. That electrons do not attract other particles to themselves?
3. Both 1 and 2 above?
Clearly, the universal gravitational constant, G, is pretty poorly known (only about 3 decimal places), so since electrons only comprise a small proportion of the inertial mass of atoms, you may be right to doubt 2. In theory, we should know whether 1 is true by the effect of gravity on electrons like beta radiation. However, I do not know of any research on this.
To #1) Yes and no, dependant upon circumstances.
to #2) NO, electrons are attracted to other particles, and have interactions with them, ie; protons, but which is the attractor (outside of in a battery) is difficult to prove, because of the scale.
In what I understand about gravity, the universal constant of it is that it pulls all things to a common center, all energy that has/had been radiated.
In performing that function, it, in of itself, causes heat to be generated and radiated back out, in a cyclical nature, relative to the mass of the gravitational body/generator.
The Planet proves that, and the Moon, the Sun, Mass, the Stars, they all demonstrate the ability of being thermal capacitors, as that is what the cycle of gravitational activity performs, the capacitance of heat.
When it ends, it is in a "Big Crunch", but is is a very "COLD Big Crunch".
What is presently being thought of as 'Dark Energy', might simply be us, finally observing the activity of gravity that is the rebounding of the elastic of space itself, and the sighting of the evidence that the universe is indeed capable of reversing it's expansion, and is 'presently' (so to speak, as the distances invoke 'past' times) beginning, (or in the process of) to recontract(ing).
But all of this, is, by far, NOT all of the answer, not even close, lots of details is/are still missing.
BTW Nigel, if the medium is "Superfluid", as to afford 'no resistance' to motion, then there can be NO shadowing effect, as a shadowing effect MUST, and IS, an indication of a pressure differential.
But nice math work, just the same...a bit of the "Monte Carlo" method is it?