# Electric charge – a different approach

## Recommended Posts

It does have any importance how many bodies? Does not matter. I wrote this just to show the similarities between the two physical fields. It doesn't matter how many bodies they are. I just wanted to show that "different masses have the same gravitational acceleration is similar to different masses have the same electrical charge, to justify the description of the electric field, in the same way as the gravitational field, namely, to give it a form which will be described by space-time geometry. Therefore it does not matter how many bodies are. Please see the first paragraph of "Background of the study".

Ok.

I did the theoretical part (theoretical-philosophical), and I wouldn't mind if someone built the math part.

But then the philosophical part you create must make sense and not contradict what is already modelled mathematically and experimentally confirmed. I'm trying to find out what you actually claim to be similarities between gravity and charge.

Here are two pictures, one for each statement:

On 9/23/2019 at 8:56 PM, MavricheAdrian said:

Different bodies (under the unique influence of a gravitational field) have the same gravitational acceleration (it moves identically in the field.

(Two different masses and gravitation from a third, large body)

On 9/2/2019 at 8:34 PM, MavricheAdrian said:

- different masses (the electron and the proton) have the same electrical charge (as a value) [1];

Does the pictures show what you intend to say?

##### Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, studiot said:

Forgive my niggle, but there are similarities as well as differences.

Of course.

##### Share on other sites
19 hours ago, studiot said:

But this is not true.

1) For gravitational  attraction the force depends upon the mass and is independent of any charge.

2) For electric attraction the force depends upon the charge and is independent of any mass.

3) However for both the acceleration depends only upon the mass since acceleration = Force/mass.

Sorry, but I think you do not understand the idea of this similarity. I'm going to grow up, maybe that's how the idea is understood:

"different masses have the same gravitational acceleration is similar to different masses have the same electrical charge"

19 hours ago, Strange said:

F = ma IS the theory.

Excuse me, but is super joke

19 hours ago, Strange said:

Of course. Because gravity is purely attractive.

So you can say a spaceship is attracted to the Earth by gravity. And when it travels to the Moon, it will also be attracted to that. And the Moon will be attracted to the Earth.

That doesn't work with electric charge. If the spaceship is attracted to th Earth, then they must have opposite charge. If the spaceship is also attracted to the Moon, then they must have opposite charge. That means that the Moon will have the same charge as the Earth and they will repel one another. And so the Moon will fly off into space.

Gravity and electric charge are completely different for this, and many other, reasons.

That's out of our discussion

19 hours ago, studiot said:

Forgive my niggle, but there are similarities as well as differences.

But they are most certainly not the same.

That's what I said in "Basic Ideas", there are similarities and differences. It just needs to be read carefully.

19 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Does the pictures show what you intend to say?

I have already highlighted the idea, but I repeat it:

"different masses have the same gravitational acceleration is similar to different masses have the same electrical charge"

I answered why I did this " I just wanted to show that "different masses have the same gravitational acceleration is similar to different masses have the same electrical charge, to justify the description of the electric field, in the same way as the gravitational field, namely, to give it a form which will be described by space-time geometry. Therefore it does not matter how many bodies are. Please see the first paragraph of "Background of the study"."

##### Share on other sites

Sorry, but I think you do not understand the idea of this similarity. I'm going to grow up, maybe that's how the idea is understood:

"different masses have the same gravitational acceleration is similar to different masses have the same electrical charge"

Excuse me, but is super joke

That's out of our discussion

That's what I said in "Basic Ideas", there are similarities and differences. It just needs to be read carefully.

I have already highlighted the idea, but I repeat it:

"different masses have the same gravitational acceleration is similar to different masses have the same electrical charge"

I answered why I did this " I just wanted to show that "different masses have the same gravitational acceleration is similar to different masses have the same electrical charge, to justify the description of the electric field, in the same way as the gravitational field, namely, to give it a form which will be described by space-time geometry. Therefore it does not matter how many bodies are. Please see the first paragraph of "Background of the study"."

It is very clear from your answers to several responders that you have confused others and not made yourself clear.

In particular this sentence is just plain wrong.

different masses have the same gravitational acceleration is similar to different masses have the same electrical charge"

I accept that I may have misunderstood your meaning but as it stands it is wrong because

An individual mass may have any (valid) charge independent and regardless of the rest of the universe and any other masses or charges in it.
In particular it may possess that charge when isolated from the rest of the universe.

But

A body has no gravitational acceleration when isolated from the rest of the universe.
The term is then meaningless.

Therefore the one case is not similar to the other, but quite different.

So would you please rephrase what you really mean in unambiguous English so we can all stop wasting time on a futile argument.

Edited by studiot

##### Share on other sites

I have already highlighted the idea, but I repeat it

Repeating it does not make it any clearar. I have tried various ways to get a clear picture what the idea is so it can be investigated with more rigor. If the images I posted are correct, say so. If they are not correctly showing your statments please provide some other description than a repetition. Maybe you can supply a picture?

##### Share on other sites

"different masses have the same gravitational acceleration is similar to different masses have the same electrical charge"

Acceleration is a behavior and mass is a property, so the former statement is saying there is a behavior which is not dependent on the property.

Charge is another property, so the latter claim is that these two properties have some relation, but that relation does not actually exist, and the statements are not similar. The statement isn't even true. I can pick a bunch of different particles with different masses and with different charge. (e.g. a neutron, a proton and an electron)

##### Share on other sites
On 9/25/2019 at 6:33 PM, studiot said:

In particular this sentence is just plain wrong.

There is nothing wrong

On 9/25/2019 at 6:33 PM, studiot said:

I accept that I may have misunderstood your meaning but as it stands it is wrong because

An individual mass may have any (valid) charge independent and regardless of the rest of the universe and any other masses or charges in it.
In particular it may possess that charge when isolated from the rest of the universe.

But

A body has no gravitational acceleration when isolated from the rest of the universe.
The term is then meaningless.

Therefore the one case is not similar to the other, but quite different.

So would you please rephrase what you really mean in unambiguous English so we can all stop wasting time on a futile argument.

The cases presented by you are some special cases, which are not interesting for my presentation.

Please understand that I wanted to highlight the similarities and differences between electric charge and gravity, just to justify why I wanted to give it a graphical form and to the electrical charge. I do not deny the existence of the extreme cases presented by you, but they have no importance in the development of my theory. You can also skip chapter 2(II.  Basic Ideas), nothing will change in the understanding of my theory.

Please read all the material carefully and you will understand that these extreme cases presented by you have no relevance in my discussion.

On 9/25/2019 at 6:49 PM, Ghideon said:

Repeating it does not make it any clearar. I have tried various ways to get a clear picture what the idea is so it can be investigated with more rigor. If the images I posted are correct, say so. If they are not correctly showing your statments please provide some other description than a repetition. Maybe you can supply a picture?

The images that you posted is correct, but they do not matter to my material.

Please understand that I wanted to highlight the similarities and differences between electric charge and gravity, just to justify why I wanted to give it a graphical form and to the electrical charge.  You can also skip chapter 2(II.  Basic Ideas), nothing will change in the understanding of my theory.

On 9/25/2019 at 6:57 PM, swansont said:

I can pick a bunch of different particles with different masses and with different charge. (e.g. a neutron, a proton and an electron)

Unfortunately, here you are wrong. The proton and the electron have different masses, but the same electrical charge.

The neuron has no electrical charge - or we can say it is 0 (that's why it is called neutro-n ... neutro- neutral, no load).

I, the neutron I put in another category, but for this you have to read all the material, so you can understand what I'm talking about.

##### Share on other sites

Unfortunately, here you are wrong. The proton and the electron have different masses, but the same electrical charge.

The neuron has no electrical charge - or we can say it is 0 (that's why it is called neutro-n ... neutro- neutral, no load).

I, the neutron I put in another category, but for this you have to read all the material, so you can understand what I'm talking about.

There are only two choices here. Either they are the same, or they are not the same. The electron and proton have opposite charge. Same magnitude, different sign. Thus, they have different charge.

And something with no charge has a different charge than something that does.

##### Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, swansont said:

There are only two choices here. Either they are the same, or they are not the same. The electron and proton have opposite charge. Same magnitude, different sign. Thus, they have different charge.

Sorry, it's my mistake. They have the same electrical charge as value. In my material so I wrote "different masses (the electron and the proton) have the same electrical charge (as a value) ". Please read all the material, so you will understand my reasoning

##### Share on other sites

Or

You can also skip chapter 2(II.  Basic Ideas), nothing will change in the understanding of my theory.

Which one is it?

I have read you material several times. First statement in chapter III is

Quote

Since the similarities between the two fields are very high,

That seems to refer to chapter II, a chapter that you now say does not matter. Maybe you could edit the material so it makes sense instead of repeating the request that it should be read over and over?

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

Stop telling people to read your text. You have to accept that if people are asking questions it is because your text is not clear, not because they have not read it.

You need to answer the questions by explaining what you mean, not just repeating the same thing.

##### Share on other sites

Sorry, it's my mistake. They have the same electrical charge as value. In my material so I wrote "different masses (the electron and the proton) have the same electrical charge (as a value) ". Please read all the material, so you will understand my reasoning

OK, then, quarks.

##### Share on other sites
On 9/30/2019 at 8:18 PM, Strange said:
!

Moderator Note

Stop telling people to read your text. You have to accept that if people are asking questions it is because your text is not clear, not because they have not read it.

You need to answer the questions by explaining what you mean, not just repeating the same thing.

Hello Strange,

First of all, I apologize for responding so late, but some activities caught me and I had no free time.

It is true that English is not my native language, and it is possible that to make myself hard to be understood . For that, thank you for your understanding.

When I say "Please read all the material carefully", I'm not saying it with malice, but, because this shows me the questions of the some members participating in the discussion.

Let's take the example of "swansont", and I'll explain:

After "swansont" asks me questions about proton, electron and neutron (things I mentioned in "Introduction"), after I clarify everything, he asks me about quarks, and if he read carefully "Introduction", he would have seen that I also wrote about quarks. That's the idea, that's why I say to read carefully, and I am not malicious.

I hope you understood me, now.

Thanks!

##### Share on other sites

Hello Strange,

First of all, I apologize for responding so late, but some activities caught me and I had no free time.

It is true that English is not my native language, and it is possible that to make myself hard to be understood . For that, thank you for your understanding.

When I say "Please read all the material carefully", I'm not saying it with malice, but, because this shows me the questions of the some members participating in the discussion.

Let's take the example of "swansont", and I'll explain:

After "swansont" asks me questions about proton, electron and neutron (things I mentioned in "Introduction"), after I clarify everything, he asks me about quarks, and if he read carefully "Introduction", he would have seen that I also wrote about quarks. That's the idea, that's why I say to read carefully, and I am not malicious.

I hope you understood me, now.

Thanks!

You mention quarks only as components of neutrons and protons. That’s it. It does not address my point about mass and charge.

##### Share on other sites
On 9/30/2019 at 7:44 PM, Ghideon said:

Or

Which one is it?

I have read you material several times. First statement in chapter III is

That seems to refer to chapter II, a chapter that you now say does not matter. Maybe you could edit the material so it makes sense instead of repeating the request that it should be read over and over?

Hello Ghideon!

Is possible that to make myself hard to be understood, and thank you for your understanding.

To make things easier, exclude from the material this part:

"-          and I would add, as manifestations of the fields:

- different masses (under the influence of the unique gravitational field) have the same

gravitational acceleration (it moves identically in the field) [2] [4];

- different masses (the electron and the proton) have the same electrical charge (as a value) [1]; "

Thanks!

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

You mention quarks only as components of neutrons and protons. That’s it. It does not address my point about mass and charge.

Hello "swansont"!

It is mostly true what you say, but I made it clear in "Introduction", why I do not take into consideration quarks (I do not take into consideration for this material - I underline).

Thanks!

I wish you a Merry Christmas, and if I do not succeed to answer, I wish you, for all the members of the forum, a new year full of successes and accomplishments!

##### Share on other sites

Hello "swansont"!

It is mostly true what you say, but I made it clear in "Introduction", why I do not take into consideration quarks (I do not take into consideration for this material - I underline).

Thanks!

I wish you a Merry Christmas, and if I do not succeed to answer, I wish you, for all the members of the forum, a new year full of successes and accomplishments!

You say you consider elementary particles, and quarks qualify. Protons, however, do not.

##### Share on other sites

Read it all or skip some parts?

On 12/23/2019 at 7:54 PM, MavricheAdrian said:

When I say "Please read all the material carefully", I'm not saying it with malice,

On 12/23/2019 at 8:13 PM, MavricheAdrian said:

To make things easier, exclude from the material this part:

I think I'll combine the two above and carefully exclude all of the material for now.

But if you are able to post a complete and consistent description of your idea, (preferably together with some math or references backing up your claims), I'll try to read and review it.

##### Share on other sites
On 9/25/2019 at 3:47 PM, MavricheAdrian said:

to give it a form which will be described by space-time geometry

Recasting the theory of electromagnetism into a geometrical form is straightforward if you use the differential forms formalism. It then becomes simply

$dF=0$
$d\star F=4\pi \star J$

This has already been known for a long time. For a (very) detailed discussion on the similarities and differences between electromagnetism and gravity when it comes to their respective formalisms, I refer you to Misner/Thorne/Wheeler, Gravitation, chapter 15, most especially box 15.1. All of this has already been recognised and worked out in detail. Essentially, the form of both models shares a common underlying principle, being the topological principle that “the boundary of a boundary is zero”; but because the basic objects involved are different ones, you end up with two models that also have a lot of differences. In spite of any similarities, electromagnetism does not work the same way as gravity does.

I would really urge you to consult the above reference, since it seems to me that what you are trying to do is something that has already been done long ago.

Edited by Markus Hanke

##### Share on other sites

Hello!

I made changes to my theory.

##### Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

Rules still require that you post the material here. Not just upload a file.

##### Share on other sites

I made changes to my theory.

Thanks for the update. The new edition does not adress the open questions above.

On 12/23/2019 at 8:13 PM, MavricheAdrian said:

To make things easier, exclude from the material this part:

That material is still in the updated version. To make things easier, how about posting a revision that only includes the correct material you wish to discuss?

##### Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Thanks for the update. The new edition does not adress the open questions above.

That material is still in the updated version. To make things easier, how about posting a revision that only includes the correct material you wish to discuss?

Hi Ghideon!

##### Share on other sites

In what kind of journal you intend to publish? The kind that will neglect the issues raised in this thread?

Question: your new edition contains a relation between charge and the value of Hubble 's Law*:

Quote

As the parameter $H_0$ changes over time, does that mean your idea is that for instance an electron's charge changes over time? Does that macho observations?

*) It's tricky to quote your paper, trying to use screen shot.

Edited by Ghideon

## Create an account

Register a new account