What is
Gravity?
Starting from a search on the internet for the query
"What is gravity" it becomes clear that the honest answer is "we
don't know". Here's what NASA has to say on the subject:
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question30.html
This is not a very satisfying answer. But what other
theories about gravity exist that might be able to answer this question.
The closest thing we have from mainstream science is Einstein's
explanation of gravity. This always has to do something with rolling a bowling
ball on a sheet of rubber. The main problem with this analogy is that it relies
on the force of gravity to explain gravity. This analogy assumes the presence
of a gravitational downward force to cause the ball to warp the rubber sheet.
If you put this ball and sheet on the space shuttle with no gravity - suddenly
this doesn't work any more. The logic is pretty circular. But it is just
supposed to be an analogy - and a bad one at that.
The more technical explanations of Einstein's gravity has to
do with the funny notion that gravity is not a force. As strange as that seems,
it is like when you are in an elevator that suddenly accelerates upward, you
feel a force on your feet, but there is no actual downward force pushing your
feet down as if there were a rocket tied to the top of your head. This all
happens due to the geometry of the situation.
The other notion from Einstein is that of warped space. In
this explanation, a straight line is whatever path an object naturally takes
from point A to B. In the case of a cannon ball rising and falling to the Earth
- hey, that wasn't a parabolic curve, that was a straight line according to the
cannon ball. And when you drop a ball and it accelerates downward, it isn't
really accelerating, it is going the same speed, it is just that the space
beneath the ball becomes more compressed as it drops, so it just looks like it
is going faster. Gravity is just due to all this warping.
Does all of this sound hard to believe? Well, I'll admit I'm
no expert on Einstein and most of what I read made no sense whatsoever, but
what little I could glean that did make sense, I have tried to relate. There is
a quote about Einstein on how someone had listed to Einstein trying to explain
his theories for an hour and after an hour, he was convinced that Einstein knew
what he was talking about (of course he himself still had no clue).
This, of course, remains the basic problem behind Einstein's
explanation of gravity. Even though the equations he derived describe the world
with complete accuracy, the basics behind it seem to be sheer lunacy. I think
the problem here isn't that Einstein's theory is complex or fundamentally hard
to understand, so us laypeople can't possible comprehend it. Rather, I think
the theory just doesn't make any damn sense. I mean in the "logically
impossible" sense of the word. It is like saying A > B and B > A.
Those two can't be true at the same time. And if Einstein's explanation is
really good, why do most honest scientists say "they have no clue"?
Also, even if this is totally correct, it doesn't say how this warping works or
how we could manipulate it. We'll never get an anti-gravitational car out of
this theory.
Another mainline explanation comes by the way of string
theory. Everything is made out of these 'strings' and dimensions. Usually this
comes with a blackboard of equations which somehow relate gravity to the rest
of the known forces and shows that gravity should be weaker compared with other
forces. The problem here is that an equation does not explain anything. So what
if you have an equation which relates the magnetic force to gravitational
force? This still doesn't give you clue one as to why either of these forces attract.
At best it seems string theory would setup equality among the forces and would
serve like a multiplication table where you could put in any 2 numbers and get
the right answer, but still wouldn't have a clue about what the multiplication
operation was all about.
Even further out in the mainline are theories related to
string theory like the one promoted by Lisa Randall, that says that gravity is
a force that is leaking out of another dimension. Well, I find it hard to
believe that anyone takes this seriously. Just what is this force which leaks -
electrostatic, magnetic, strong, weak - what? Where is this dimension and how
do we find it? This just seems more like science fiction than science. For a
summary of string theory, see: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-string-theory.htm
I think a fundamental problem with these types of theories
is that they always postulate the existence of something like 'strings' or
extra 'dimensions' or warps which we don't already know exist. I think this is
replacing the question of 'what is gravity' with the equivalent question of
'what is x'. This really doesn't explain anything. I could say that gravity is
created by green Martians in their gravity factory. Of course, without any
proof of green Martians, you wouldn't believe me, would you? Neither should you
believe in gravity caused by 'strings'.
If you have a theory which reduces to something else, then
the thing it reduces to should be something that we know exists. So you could
have a theory of gravity which reduces to the question of 'what is an
electron?' or 'what is the electrostatic force' or 'what is an apple?'. Each of
these we know exists, so we have made some significant progress, even though we
still might not know how an electron, electrostatic force or an apple works. A
theory should not reduce down to something completely unknown and unproven.
So if mainline science doesn't have the answer, what do the
cranks and crackpot mad scientists have to say?
One theory can be found in the book "The Final
theory" by Mark McCutcheon. I like to call this theory the exploding Earth
theory because it says that gravity is actually caused by the Earth expanding
and rushing up to meet any object released above it. Drop a ball on a table -
didn't you just see the table rush up to the ball when you released it as the
Earth rapidly expanded in diameter? We just don't notice it since everything is
expanding at the same rate. This is somewhat similar to Einstein in that
gravity is not a force. The whole book is dedicated to exploring this idea in
detail and relating it to the other forces in nature, all due to the same
universal expansion of all objects. Heck, if you believe in the expansion of
the universe, why not the expansion of all objects in space? This does lead to
some odd predictions such as gravity only depends on the diameter of an object,
so a Styrofoam Earth will gravitate as much as a lead Earth. Who knows - do you
have a Styrofoam Earth to experiment with - no? Well, I guess it will be hard
to disprove this theory.
But once again, this theory suffers from the same problem
that it reduces to something we do not already know exists which is this
massive universal expansion. Why would all matter continuously expand? How
could you prove such a thing? Without any direct evidence for the existence of
the expansion, this leaves this theory unprovable, but it does give you some
creative ideas about how you could explain gravity. For more information about
this theory, see: http://www.thefinaltheory.com/
The other major theme for alternative gravity explanations
is the 'push theory' of gravity. In this theory, we are not being attracted to
the Earth by a 'pull', rather, there is a force coming from all of space which
is pushing us down onto the Earth like standing under a waterfall. In this
theory, there are particles randomly distributed and raining down on all
objects in space. When objects are nearby, they produce a shadow effect which
decreases the pressure of the force between objects, thus causing them to come
together due to the lower pressure between the object - a kind of vacuum. Of
course, this theory like all the other postulates the existence of a particle
that rains down on us which we do not know exists or have evidence for. But it
provides yet another possible way to explain gravity. For more information
about this theory, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation
Finally, there is the joke answer: "What is gravity?
There is no gravity, the Earth just sucks."
So what is the answer to the question of 'What is gravity?'.
I think that if you are searching for the answer to something and you ruled out
all reasonable and even unreasonable explanations, then the true answer must
still lie in something that you have incorrectly ruled out before. I think that
this is the case for gravity in that we have ruled out the most obvious of
explanation for gravity -out of hand- and with no legitimate reason.
What is this most 'obvious' explanation?
The obvious explanation is that "gravity is directly caused
by the electrostatic force".
This isn't so impossible to believe, after all both the
electrostatic and gravity forces create an attractive force. Both act across
unlimited distances. Both drop off in strength 1/r^2. The types of reactions
they cause matter have are very similar. Plus, we know the electrostatic force
exists. We can easily see the electrostatic force in action when we rub a
balloon on our head and stick it on the wall. The electrostatic force can
undoubtedly create an attractive force like gravity. I mean, what's harder to
believe - that gravity is an aspect of an attractive force that we already know
of, or is it easier to believe in 'strings', leaking gravity, or the exploding
Earth?
Well, if it is so obvious, why is it so completely rejected
by the scientific community without even a thought. The key here is 'rejected
without a thought' - meaning that this idea is seemingly ruled out by even more
'obvious' means using what I would call 'paper-napkin' calculations and
arguments which do not go into any depth. These are casual calculations you
might quickly write on a paper-napkin over a dinner discussion and serve as a
'slam-dunk' argument against an electrostatic gravity.
For example, gravity cannot be caused because the
electrostatic force because we know the electrostatic force is both attractive
and repels, but gravity is only attractive. Therefore gravity must be different
from the electrostatic force. This is just as far as this argument goes,
nothing else backs it up as it is 'obvious'. We all believe it and go 'yeah,
that must be right' - without another thought.
But it is not so obvious. Everyone knows that opposite
charges attract but what does a charge do to a neutrally charged piece of
matter? The answer is - it also attracts it unconditionally. This is what most
people don't know, all neutrally charged matter is attracted to large point
electrostatic charge. It doesn't even matter what polarity the charge is,
positive or negative - if you put a ball of charge in the center of a room,
everything will be attracted towards it - just like gravity. So the
electrostatic force can act like an all attractive force. And as for gravity
only being an attractive force, what happens to helium balloons? In this case,
the balloon is actually being repelled from the Earth gravitational field. If
you turned off the Earth gravity field, the balloon would remain stationary.
You might say this has to do with buoyancy, but the point is, the effect of
gravity depends on the material that an object is immersed in. We feel downward
gravity because air is not as dense as us, but put us in a pool of mercury and
we would feel and upward gravity. So it isn't even that clear that gravity is
only an attractive force.
Another reason to reject an electrostatic gravity is because
gravity is so much weaker than the electrostatic force. Gravity is only
1/1(followed by 40 zeros) the strength of the electrostatic force. So of
course, it couldn't possibly be the same thing. Or could it? The simple
explanation here is that gravity is a diluted electrostatic force. If you took
a group of 1 x 10^40 atoms and removed just one electron from that group, it
would produce a force which is exactly equivalent in force to gravity. The
magnitude of the force is actually irrelevant, you can always dilute a stronger
force into a weaker one by spreading it across more mass. No need to resort to
leaking dimensional branes to work out the weakness of gravity.
So if gravity is the direct result of the electrostatic
force, how does it operate as gravity?
I feel that the electrostatic gravity can operate in 2
possible ways. The first is the most simple and preferred theory which is that
the Earth and all celestial bodies are all slightly positively charged. As I
mentioned before, the loss of 1 electron for every 1x10^40 neutral charge pairs
is enough to generate a force equivalent to gravity. The reasons for the
electron loss is due to the fact that electrons are easily lost in matter. If
you rub anything against anything else, you cause electron loss, so it is not
unexpected that all celestial bodies would lose some charge to space, leaving
all objects positively charged. This charge isn't much, but since electrostatic
charges act as if they were summed up in the center of a planet, they do sum up
to quite a large charge and create a huge force on the surface of a planet. As
neutrally charged matter, you - me and everything around you is attracted to
this charge by the same force that causes your socks to stick together in the
dryer. Such an electrostatic force would be indistinguishable from what we call
'gravity'. So we can see how a normal electrostatic force could potentially
create a gravitational field. Notice that I haven't used anything that we don't
already know exists and behaves - I've got nothing up my sleeves.
Of course, the obvious objection is that if everything is
positively charged, then the sun, Earth and moon should all be repelled from
one another - right? Similar charges repel. So while we might be attracted to
the Earth, it should speed away from the sun. So this couldn't possibly be
right.
Be careful with those paper napkin calculations. Remember
that neutrally charged matter which makes up 99.9999999% of the matter in a celestial
object is attracted to any point charge source. To the Earth, the sun appears
as a point charge source and almost every bit of matter in it is attracted to
that source. A tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the Earth has a net positive charge
(.0000 -follow with about 38 zeros ... 01%) which is actually repelled from the
sun, but it is such a tiny fraction that it is overwhelmed by the abundance of
neutrally charged matter attracted to the sun. So it is possible two objects
which are net positively charged to still be attracted to one another. What is
neglected in the 'obvious' objection is that neutral matter is attracted to
point electrostatic charges.
Another objection would be that if the earth is so
electrically charged, how come we don't notice it. If there were a million volt
electrical charge under my feet, wouldn't we get electrocuted?
Well, first the degree of electric charge is extremely small
- so small as to be un-measurable for any reasonable sized mass. Mainstream
science will tell you that the Earth is completely neutrally charged. What this
really means is that to the degree that we can measure a charge on the Earth
(which is limited), it has no charge. But even the tiniest of imbalance of
charges add up to a very large effect. The reason why we don't get zapped is
that the electric charge is very diffuse and distributed all over the Earth. A
charge all the way on the opposite side of the Earth isn't going to be able to
migrate across the Earth to zap your feet. However, that charge, due to the
laws of electrostatics acts as if it and all the other charges in the Earth
were located at a singular point at the center of the Earth. This is quite a
remarkable effect. The result is that you get a strong summed up electrostatic
field, but without the charges being anywhere nearby. It is like the field is
disconnected from the actual charge. For details on how this works, see:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/forcereduction.htm
(This is for a hollow sphere, but the Earth is just a series
of spheres within each other - the force still sums to the center) This is yet
another law with is applicable to both electrostatics and gravity.
This is the major difference from electrostatics we see in
our normal lives and gravitational electrostatics. For example, we can create a
high electrical charge on a VanDeGraff generator, but it will zap you if you
get close enough. We normally cannot generate high electrical fields without it
attempting to discharge due to the high local displacement of charges.
Another fact supporting the charged Earth is that we do 'in
fact' measure the electrical charge of the Earth. It is a well known an
accepted scientific fact that the voltage potential from the ground to the
stratosphere is at least 300,000 volts. For details on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_voltage
Even on the ground the voltage potential difference is about
120 volts per meter. This is electricity that can actually be harvested out of
the air by placing one wire in air and another wire in the ground. A voltage
potential will build up between these 2 wires that can be used to power something.
Just where does this electric field come from if the Earth isn't charged? I'd
say it makes a lot more sense to say that the electric field is directly
generated by the charged Earth.
When lightning strikes, it is typically returning electrons
to the Earth as negative charges are attracted to the positively charged Earth
and is a simple explanation for why lighting strikes occur across the Earth
constantly. It can also be seen that in thunderclouds, the positive charges
migrate towards the top and the negative charges migrated towards the bottom.
Mainstream science currently has no accepted reason for why this charge
separation should occur, but if you think of the Earth as a positively charge
ball, it becomes obvious that the positive charges should be repelled to the
top of the clouds. So there is plenty of evidence that the Earth carries a
large electric charge.
A simple consequence of this theory of gravity is that if
the Earth is just a positively charged ball, then if we charged something up
with sufficient positive charge, it should be repelled from the Earth. So if I
managed to charge up my car enough, I could get it to float away - so this is a
possible way to anti-gravity cars. However, the reality is that it is nearly
impossible to accumulate enough charge on a car (probably several million volts
would be required) before it would immediately discharge to the ground.
However, it may be possible to levitate lighter things such as a soap bubble.
I conducted an experiment where I blew soap bubbles while I
was connected to a VanDeGraff generator which created a positive charge on the
dome. In this experiment, some of the bubbles did seem to rise rapidly as if
they had been filled with helium. To check to see if this was just the result
of bubbles being repelled from the VanDeGraff generator, I reversed the
polarity on my generator so I blew negatively charged bubbles. The result was
not only did they just all drop to the floor, but they seemed to drop faster.
This both supports the idea that the Earth is radiating a positive charge field
and that gravity can be negated through electrostatic means.
So what is still wrong with this picture? While much of what
I have related makes perfect sense, there are some serious issues with this
simple electrostatic gravity picture. If you do some more paper-napkin
calculations about how neutrally charged matter should be attracted to a point
charge, you find that the force that should be generated could not possibly be
a 1/r^2 force. Attraction of opposite charges is 1/r^2 like gravity, but the
attraction of neutral matter is caused by the slight dipole separation of
charges within matter. According to calculations, this should drop off as 1/r^3
or greater. Planets would not be able to maintain their orbits with such a
force. So we can completely discard this idea of electrostatic gravity, right?
Once again, be careful with those paper-napkin calculations
- these are after all, calculations. We do not know all the microscopic
structures of subatomic particles, so we are making numerous assumptions, all
of which could be fatally wrong. The only way to know for sure how a force
works is to measure it by experiment. Despite a lengthy search on the internet
for experiments which relate the attractive force of a point charge to a large
neutrally charged mass, I could find none, nothing, zip, nada, zilch. I find it
quite odd that I can find nothing about this important attractive force.
So, I did my own experiment using a VanDeGraff generator to
determine the distance required to levitate a small mass. By varying the mass,
I would work out the relationship between force and radius. My initial
experiments confirmed a 1/r^2 relationship. But then I discovered that the pin
I was using to hold up my small test mass was allowing the mass to become
charged through induction because the positive field forced all the positive
charges out of the mass leaving the mass negatively charged. I was still
measuring the force of oppositely charged particles.
So I then supported the mass with a plastic whisker which
prevented the charge from running out of the mass. The force appeared to be
much weaker and aI got a result which looked like 1/r. I have later come to
realize that the curves you get for 1/r and 1/r^2 look nearly identical for a
radius up to 10. You really have to have a radius of at least 12-18 to be able
to tell the difference between 1/r and 1/r^2 and my experiment may not have
gone into this range. So I still don't have a conclusive experiment to show
that the force relationship between a point charge and a lump of neutral matter
is 1/r^2 despite whatever the calculations might lead you to believe. The
important point is that you can NEVER rely on calculations alone to determine physical
behavior. So until someone shows me an experiment showing otherwise, it is
still possible for the simple electrostatic gravity to work as 1/r^2.
I also took another approach to the problem. The reason why we think gravity is a 1/r^2 force is because Newton worked out the centripetal and gravitational forces balance out if gravity is a 1/r^2 force. I needed to make gravity a 1/r force to match my experiments and the only way to balance out the equations was to change the formula for the centripetal force. I was unable to find any experiments directly measuring the centripetal force relationship so once again, I did my own experiment. I did this by attaching a metal ball to a magnet and placing it on a cantilever to spin it around. I varied the radius and observed how fast it rotated when the magnet let go of the magnet. By using the data, I could work out the centripetal force relationship. My initial experiments conflicted with the accepted formula. This is where I discovered that for radius less than 7, 1/r and 1/r^2 look nearly identical. I redid the experiment with much larger radius and this did confirm the accepted formula. So I don't think I will find the answer in this manner.
I bring up these two experiments to show that you don't need
multi-billion dollar accelerators to do gravity research. These are things you
can do in your own garage with minimal setup. It also points out how you should
never blindly trust something you see in a textbook. Do your own experiments.
While the Earth as a positively charged ball is by far the
simplest explanation, there is another possibility for an electrostatic
gravity. A proton and an electron are not the same kind of particle. The proton
is over a 1000 times more massive than the electron and protons cannot be
easily stripped from an atom. So, it is not unreasonable to assume that this
difference might cause a very tiny difference in how their electrical charges
work. It turns out that if you make the assumption that strength of the
repelling force between similar charges is just a tiny bit weaker than the
attractive force between opposite charges, you get an all attractive force of
gravity between all neutrally charged matter which must have a 1/r^2 force
relationship. This immediately fixes the problem of the electrostatic gravity
not being 1/r^2, so mathematically, it works out perfectly.
However, it is not as simple as the positively charged Earth
theory and it would fail to explain why the Earth has an electric field if that
electric field doesn't cause gravity all by itself. I prefer theories which
explain multiple phenomenon as being aspects of the same phenomenon, so the
charged Earth theory is more attractive. It would also be easier to reverse
gravity if it is due to a simple positive charge. If gravity is due to the tiny
difference between attraction and repulsion between charged pairs, then it is
probably impossible to create they type of field using electrical means.
Now, I know, if there are any full time employed scientists
out there reading this, you're just sitting at the edge of your seat going, NO!
NO! NO!, that's got to be wrong - that's completely crazy - you're never going
to be able to prove any of this!
Just hold onto your hats ... ask yourself, why do you react
like this - honestly? Would you rather believe in strings and gravitons and
multi-dimensions? Instead of thinking of all the things that could be wrong
about this or that you know are wrong about this - think about how you could
address and remove those issues. I have already shown several common 'obvious'
objections which are easily overcome. If you could overcome those objections,
then the prize would be answer to the question of 'What is gravity'. Not only
that, it would be a very simple and beautiful theory that you could explain to
a first grader.
Anyone who could conclusively describe the nature of gravity
would be more famous than Einstein. Conventional science has been kicking this
question around for centuries without a clue. Here is a dead simple explanation
which immediately unifies gravity and the electrostatic force as one. So just
stop it with the negative and start thinking about positives of how to solve
the problems an electrostatic gravity presents.
Unlike other gravity theories, the electrostatic gravity
reduces to an aspect of the well known and accepted electrostatic force. You
are not required to accept anything which is currently unknown and so this
gives the theory a viable base. However, this still leaves us with the question
of how the electrostatic force works. We are now back where we started and
instead of ‘what is gravity’, we have the question of ‘what is the
electrostatic force’. So while some progress has been made in understanding
what gravity is – the fundamental question of why things attract hasn’t been
answered. Why should a proton attract an electron?
In the Standard Model, the electrostatic force is created by
force carrier particles. The way these are supposed to work is that each bit of
matter sends back and forth these force carrier particles and the more they
send, the more they are attracted. Normally, we would think that if you are
passing an object like a basketball between two people that the act of passing
the ball faster and faster would be a repelling force, but according to the Standard
Model of particle physics, they attract. For the electrostatic or
electromagnetic force, these force carrier particles are called photons.
Photons are also what we refer to as light.
So how can light bouncing back and forth between particles
ever possibly cause an attractive or repulsive force? Does this make any sense
at all?
The key is to understand what causes attractive and
repulsive forces in our common experience. If you take a vacuum cleaner and
point it at an object, you can see that it attracts objects to it. So we can
easily understand attractive forces appear when an object is between a region
of low pressure (the vacuum) and higher pressure (normal room pressure).
Similarly, if we take leaf blower, we see that objects are repelled from a region
of high pressure.
Therefore, we should try to understand the attraction of a
positive and negative charge as somehow creating a region of low pressure
between the charges which causes them to be sucked together. Similarly, we
should understand that the repulsion of similar charges as somehow creating a
region of high pressure between the identical charges.
In order to have regions of high or low pressure, we need
some sort of medium like air which can fill all of space. But since we know
that the electromagnetic force works even in a complete vacuum, it can’t
possibly be air that creates the high or low pressure. It must be something
else which is very difficult to detect.
I would propose that space is completely filled with
particles like air filling a room, but these particles are made up of
positron/electron pairs. We know that positron and electrons exist and what
their properties are, but what we haven’t properly recognized is what happens
when they collide. Standard science tells us that they annihilate each other
and are converted entirely into energy. I don’t believe that this is the case
because matter simply cannot disappear or be converted to energy. Neither can
energy be converted into matter. What really happens it that as the positron
and electron accelerate on a collision course, they attain the highest possible
speed which is the speed of light. Upon collision, they release the kinetic
energy of the collision which just happens to be E = mc^2 and it forms a new
particle I call a poselectron. The poselectron forms the fundamental unit or
quanta of space. This is the medium which transmits the electromagnetic wave
across even a pure vacuum. If you hit a poselectron with mc^2 worth of energy,
you can break the positron/electron bond and you get pair production of a
separate positron and electron. These mass particles did not appear out of
nowhere or were “converted” from pure energy – the mass particles were there
all along.
So now that we have a medium capable of creating regions of
high and low pressure, how do we make the pressure between a positive and
negative charge lower?
One characteristic of almost anything is that everything has
a resonant frequency. So if you hit a bell, it will ring out its particular
resonant frequency. No matter how hard or how frequently, you hit the bell, it
will always ring out with the same frequency. Positrons and electrons also have
a resonant frequency. It is probably extremely high, perhaps in the range of
10^20 Hertz. So as positrons and electrons are jostled about by the ambient
thermal energy, they are ringing out like tiny bells.
Positrons and electrons ring very similarly, except that
they are 180 degrees out of phase which means that the waves from the positron
are cancelled by the waves from the electron. So between a positron and electron,
the waves are cancelled, which creates a region of low pressure between them.
This causes the particles to appear to be attracted to one another. Similarly,
between two positrons, the waves add up creating a region of high pressure
between them which pushes the particles apart. So we have attraction of
opposite charges and repulsion of similar charges. If you think this idea is
far fetched and could never work in the real world, this very effect has been
experimentally demonstrated using pulsing balloons in a water tank. The force
works out to be a 1/r^2 force just like the electromagnetic force.
So now we have a clear commonsense picture of what causes
the attraction and repulsion due to a simple pressure differential. We can now
see that the “photons” which are really just electromagnetic waves, really do
cause the attractive/repelling force. The photons don’t go back and forth as is
stated in the Standard Model, but they just go forward like waves in a pond and
interact with other waves to create pressure differentials.
This also shows the “energy source” for the electromagnetic
and gravitational source. Mainstream science will deny that the forces we observe
in electrostatic, magnetic and gravity fields require an “energy source”.
However, if you consider a particle moving in space and the only way to change
its speed or direction is by the application of some “energy” from somewhere.
Particles simply don’t change their motion by themselves. The source of the
energy comes from the surrounding ambient thermal energy – which is quite
abundant at room temperatures. The speed of an air molecule at room temperature
is something like 3000 mph. That’s a lot of energy.
A prediction of this theory would be that if you managed to
remove all of the ambient thermal energy of an object and reduce its
temperature to absolute zero, all electrostatic, magnetic and gravitational
fields would cease to exist. We do see some odd behavior of materials which are
close to these temperatures like the superfluidity of liquid helium – a fluid
capable of flowing up beaker walls seemingly in defiance of gravity. There have
also been experiments showing that the ionization energy of an atom (the amount
of energy it takes to remove an electron from an atom) drops in ultracold
environments. Perhaps this is due to a weakening of the electrostatic force at
these temperatures.
So now we have a complete picture of gravity. What is
gravity? Gravity is caused by the electrostatic force and the electrostatic
force is cause by phased waves generated by positrons and electrons. That is
the entire explanation in a single sentence.
This is fully mechanical explanation which should be fully
testable. It should be possible to find the poselectron sea and determine its
characteristics. It should be possible to find the resonant frequency of
positrons and electrons and show they are out of phase. It should be possible to
test for a net charge on the Earth. It should be possible to test whether a
tiny imbalance exists between opposite and similar charges. It is critical that
a theory can be proven wrong by experiment. Otherwise, I could say that gravity
is caused by Martians living in a dimension which we cannot access. There is no
experiment that can be performed that can show that this is wrong. Because of
that, this theory is not built on a testable foundation and is virtually
worthless. It still might be true, but a theory which does not rely on
untestable postulates is much better.
Because I have not resorted to postulating the existence of
anything that we don’t already know exists, there is nothing new that needs to
be discovered – only the behavior of existing particles needs to be confirmed.
Everything has been built up out of positrons and electrons and their known characteristics
– I have not “built castles in the air”, but have started with particles which
are very familiar to physics and I have not used any behaviors which cannot be readily
demonstrated in a physical experiment.
This explanation of gravity is only a small part of an
interwoven explanation for most physical phenomenon which puzzles science today.
Everything we see and observe should be directly derivable from the properties
of only positrons and electrons. For more information on this Theory of
Everything, see: http://franklinhu.com/theory.html