Is Gravity Just the Electrostatic Force?

[TruthSeeker777]

TL;DR Summary

Is Gravity Just the Electrostatic Force?

I read this paper and this is iindeed a very interesting hypothesis. The implications of this theory if true are enormous! Please comment!

Is Gravity Just the Electrostatic Force?
<crackpot link deleted>

 

[malawi_glenn]

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/

Non-mainstream theories:
Generally, in the forums we do not allow the following:

• Discussion of theories that appear only on personal websites, self-published books, etc.
• Challenges to mainstream theories (relativity, the Big Bang, etc.) that go beyond current professional discussion
• Attempts to promote or resuscitate theories that have been discredited or superseded (e.g. Lorentz ether theory); this does not exclude discussion of those theories in a purely historical context
• Personal theories or speculations that go beyond or counter to generally accepted science
• Mixing science and religion, e.g. using religious doctrines in support of scientific arguments or vice versa.
• Philosophical discussions are permitted only at the discretion of the mentors and may be deleted or closed without warning or appeal

Links to websites that fall in the categories listed above will be removed.

 

[Orodruin]

And just before this thread gets sent to the PF black hole:

No.

 

[vanhees71]

Summary: Is Gravity Just the Electrostatic Force?

I read this paper and this is iindeed a very interesting hypothesis. The implications of this theory if true are enormous! Please comment!

Is Gravity Just the Electrostatic Force?
<crackpot link deleted>

It's pretty easy to disprove this idea, even on the level of Newtonian gravity: First of all the sources of the electrostatic field are charge distributions at rest, those of the gravitational field are mass distributions, and in electrostatics like-sign charges repell, while the always positive (i.e., like-sign) masses attract each other.

The deeper reason comes of course from relativity, where the electromagnetic field is described by a massless vector field and that of gravitation as a 2nd-rank tensor field. This alone already explains the repulsive-versus-attractive issue.

 

[malawi_glenn]

His paper "Quarks Do Not Exist Everything is made up of only positrons and electrons" is a classic

 

[Bandersnatch]

And just before this thread gets sent to the PF black hole:

No.

But it was formatted like a scientific paper and published by some blokes' organisation 'friendly to the idea of criticizing Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity', and it describes quality high-precision experiments such as 'the comb attracts my hair' and 'feels like is should work'!

First of all the sources of the electrostatic field are charge distributions at rest, those of the gravitational field are mass distributions, and in electrostatics like-sign charges repell, while the always positive (i.e., like-sign) masses attract each other.

Have you not read the paper?! (don't answer that) It includes a direct refutation of this spurious argument - namely: I rub my comb and it attracts my hair even though I never rubbed my hair (or was it straw?), so why not planets and stars too?

 

[Dale]

Summary: Is Gravity Just the Electrostatic Force?

I read this paper and this is iindeed a very interesting hypothesis. The implications of this theory if true are enormous! Please comment!

Is Gravity Just the Electrostatic Force?
<crackpot link deleted>

This thread is closed. We do not discuss crackpot papers here. References must be consistent with the mainstream professional scientific literature.

FYI, electrostatic interactions cannot even explain the solar system. For all the planets to be attracted to the sun they would have to repel each other. There can be a torque on a neutral object, but not a net force, so the neutral attraction argument is wrong. This has all been understood for about two centuries now.