Jump to content

Can’t be possible, a parallel “ gravity -- electric” interaction between Cosmos bodies? (One speculative question)


Kramer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can’t be possible, a parallel “ gravity -- electric” interaction between
Cosmos bodies?
(One speculative question)

 

Let suppose that cosmic bodies possesses electric negative charges free. And in amount proportional with their mass as below:

Qx / e = Mx / Mun. = Nx

Here Qx is the amount in Coulomb of electric free charges.
Mx is the mass of cosmic body.
Mun. = Mplank * sqrt(α^0.5) = 1.859389987 * 10^-9 kg.
Nx = Proportion

Then forces of electric and gravity interaction will be:
Fe = Q1 * Q2 / (4*pi*ε * (D1-2 )^2) = G * M1 * M2 / ( D1-2)^2

For example:
The electric and gravity forces between sun and earth.

Qsun = e * Nsun = 1.706963894 * 10 ^20 Coulomb
Qearth = e * Nearth = 5.146043764 * 10 ^ 14 Coulomb
Dsun earth = 149.6*10^9 m
Then:
Fe= Qsun *Qearth. / (4 * pi * ε * (Dsun-earth)*2) = 3.5275731*10^22 kg.m.sec^-2
Fg = G * Msun*Mearth / (Dsun-earth)^2 = 3.5275731558*10^22 kg.m.sec^-2

Does it make any sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the electrostatic force on the earth from the sun were equal to the gravitational, then the orbit would be noticeably different; you've doubled the force. If they cancel, there is zero force and there is no orbit.

 

But those aren't the only two bodies in the solar system. What charge do the other planets have, and also their moons? You need to reconcile all of those motions with either greater or smaller forces, depending on their charge.

 

And all of these bodies having this excess charge: where did all that charge come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Electrostatic charged bodies are easily detectable, as they act like this plume for instance:

post-100882-0-91109100-1446748720.jpg

 

Electrons want to be as far as they can from other electrons, causing movement of elements.

 

Earth has radius 6370 km,

Area A=4*PI*r^2,

so

A=4*3.14159265*6370000^2=5.099*10^14 m^2

 

You have Qearth=5.146043764 * 10 ^ 14 C

 

That's ~1 C per 1m^2 of Earth surface..

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kleinos

Not really. You need to define your tend more clearly. Where did Nsun come from?

----- Nsun = Mass of sun divided by Plank mass constant * sq.rt. alpha..,

I thought that “about” one third of all electric charges that are in a body must be free, or as they are called, vagabonds charges.

What astonished me was the equivalence of energy and force, created by those electric charges, with energy and force created by gravity.
I admit that this post is a mean for me as a poster to understand some key concept about role of electricity in cosmic space

One question is about electric constant of space.
The space has in fact one electric constant, which for me is mysterious. In units of this electric constant are Farad / m = C / U * m.
Does this mean that space has electric charges, and electric potential on its own?
The theory asserts that space posses ability in every point for creating spontaneous pair of electric charges of opposite signs in very short of intervals. That seems to me weird. But I think this is not the point of post.
My tend is to find --- maybe the space is the post for the antimatter, as are the cosmic bodies the post for mater and that they interact with each other differently as we thought.

One other question:
The earth is the place with zero electric potential. But in the same time is an immense deposit for negative electric charges. Doesn’t the earth create any potential toward space that depends by distance?

 

Swanson
If the electrostatic force on the earth from the sun were equal to the gravitational, then the orbit would be noticeably different; you've doubled the force. If they cancel, there is zero force and there is no orbit.
----- Good points for discard this post.
Any exit with different proportionality, or for 90 grads toward vector of gravity force?
Or you deny whatever electric interaction between cosmic bodies?

But those aren't the only two bodies in the solar system. What charge do the other planets have, and also their moons? You need to reconcile all of those motions with either greater or smaller forces, depending on their charge.
---- The same rule for all, about amount and about distances.. The same rule of interaction for electricity as it is for gravity.
And all of these bodies having this excess charge: where did all that charge come from?
---- This “exces” is about one third of all number of charges of the body, but i think, able to interact even out side the body.

 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

----- Nsun = Mass of sun divided by Plank mass constant * sq.rt. alpha..,

Is there a physical basis for this, or is it just pulled from where visible photons are rare?

 

I thought that “about” one third of all electric charges that are in a body must be free, or as they are called, vagabonds charges.

Why would you think that? How would electrical insulation work if this were the case?

 

In copper it's one electron in the conduction band per atom.

 

Swanson

If the electrostatic force on the earth from the sun were equal to the gravitational, then the orbit would be noticeably different; you've doubled the force. If they cancel, there is zero force and there is no orbit.

----- Good points for discard this post.

Any exit with different proportionality, or for 90 grads toward vector of gravity force?

Or you deny whatever electric interaction between cosmic bodies?

I don't know what "Any exit with different proportionality, or for 90 grads toward vector of gravity force" means

 

I don't deny electrical interaction. I question the magnitude of it.

 

But those aren't the only two bodies in the solar system. What charge do the other planets have, and also their moons? You need to reconcile all of those motions with either greater or smaller forces, depending on their charge.

---- The same rule for all, about amount and about distances.. The same rule of interaction for electricity as it is for gravity.

 

So everything repels. And is contradicted by basically all classical physics observations.

 

And all of these bodies having this excess charge: where did all that charge come from?

---- This “exces” is about one third of all number of charges of the body, but i think, able to interact even out side the body.

Which, as I have indicated, is a ludicrous assumption, even if one assumes electrons in the conduction band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sensei
Electrons want to be as far as they can from other electrons, causing movement of elements.

Earth has radius 6370 km,
Area A=4*PI*r^2,
so
A=4*3.14159265*6370000^2=5.099*10^14 m^2

You have Qearth=5.146043764 * 10 ^ 14 C

That's ~1 C per 1m^2 of Earth surface..

 

------ Wright! And this is only a cubic root of the “total electric charges” that posses 1 m^3 Earth. Am I wrong?
But you may say that there doesn’t exist any electric charge --- with your math: +1 –1 = 0
And that make sense. But you can’t explain the facts of every day reality where gravity is defied only by electric counter-acting, for a stabile status. Why not in the cosmic arena?
To try for finding an explanation is not wrong. I asked for experts if there exist any electric potential between space and earth. I not intend “that”, which is created by ionosphere.
I intend something else, different, as the property of itself space, consistent with its electric constant. Can you give any clue? Something like “skin effect” on earth that may create potential toward space’s… . Sure this is out of box.


Swanson
Is there a physical basis for this, or is it just pulled from “where visible photons are rare?”
---- Physical basis, is the equivalence of all kind of energies, other way expressed -- the law of preservation of energy. At least in Plank area this is obvious.
And in the concept that stability, equilibrium is based in the equality of electric and gravity energies, in equality and opposite of their forces.
I can’t grasp “where visible photons are rare?”. If you see this as a clue please elaborate for me.

Why would you think that? How would electrical insulation work if this were the case?

In copper it's one electron in the conduction band per atom.
----- If we reason with strict known physics rules, without any exception or deviation, it is futile to dig in unknown territories for any hopeful new discovery. So let see this way:
Where is anti matter and its constituents? The physic didn’t give any all approved basic explanation. I think it is a big mystery, maybe linked with Dirak sea….. And side way with this post.
And I am curious to know how many electrons plus, may we inject in one kg cooper?

 

I don't know what "Any exit with different proportionality, or for 90 grads toward vector of gravity force" means

I don't deny electrical interaction. I question the magnitude of it.
---- I thought that electric interaction between cosmic bodies exist but maybe not in the strength I suggested, and asked your opinion. As for 90 grads of interaction, it is a vague guess that gravity has to do with orbitals and electric interaction with spins of planets.

So everything repels. And is contradicted by basically all classical physics observations.
----- On one hand repels, and on the other hand attract. Result is equilibrium.
Like book over the table. Only distances are different.

Which, as I have indicated, is a ludicrous assumption, even if one assumes electrons in the conduction band.
---- Wright, if we are strict with what we know. And reject any try for unkown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----- If we reason with strict known physics rules, without any exception or deviation, it is futile to dig in unknown territories for any hopeful new discovery. So let see this way:

Where is anti matter and its constituents? The physic didn’t give any all approved basic explanation. I think it is a big mystery, maybe linked with Dirak sea….. And side way with this post.

 

But this is a science forum. You must reason within the known physics rules, or be able to justify whatever new physics you propose. That's not satisfied by making a few terms arbitrarily equal to each other.

 

You do understand that the Dirac sea is a model that's no longer thought to be correct, right?

 

And I am curious to know how many electrons plus, may we inject in one kg cooper?

Something you could calculate, if you followed the many suggestions to go and learn some basic physics.

 

----- On one hand repels, and on the other hand attract. Result is equilibrium.

Like book over the table. Only distances are different.

How can it do both? To get zero electrostatic force there must be no net charge on the body, which is not what you claimed. If the electrostatic is in equilibrium with gravity there is no net force and there can be no orbits.

 

If some bodies have positive charge and some negative (which is something I already asked about), then you still have a problem, because the orbits are all wrong. Plus the issue of what causes one body to be positive and another to be negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swanson
But this is a science forum. You must reason within the known physics rules, or be able to justify whatever new physics you propose. That's not satisfied by making a few terms arbitrarily equal to each other.

---- My post is about issues that I have vague concepts. Maybe wrong ones. May be right ones. Is for this that I beg helps, from knowledgeable persons, in form “of questions”.
If any of my sentences seems like assertion, or as boasting assurance that I am right, I am very sorry. The cause is my lack, not only in physics, is it most in my English language. For this, I post in short sentences, that may seems like assertions.
Now about this post:
Here are some questions, not new physics, for which I hope any kind of answer by specialist:
1) Has or not any electrostatic potential the space itself?
2) Have or not any physic meaning the unities in “electric constant of space”?
3) Is really earth, and maybe every cosmic body, an immense reservoir for free electric charges?
4) Is it “so absurd” the idea of antimatter sub-particles in space as the matter sub-particles in cosmic bodies?
5) Is it electric charge an entity embedded in mass, or a byproduct of electric field?
6) Is it gravity a property of mass, or field?
7) Is it excluded for sure the possibility of antimatters antigravity?
And now about my posts in general:
Are any criterions in rules, about what graduation, what profession, what standard of education must have the poster, what may post and what not, when must be closed the post and how long it may it continue, what kind of experimental proofs needed to discuss a theme for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post is about issues that I have vague concepts. Maybe wrong ones. May be right ones. Is for this that I beg helps, from knowledgeable persons, in form “of questions”.

 

You haven't previously asked many questions, apart from general ones like "does it make sense?" (no).

 

By the way, have you noticed the "Quote" button below each post?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82164-the-quote-function-a-tutorial-in-several-parts/

 

It is very hard to separate what you are saying from what you have copied from others.

 

1) Has or not any electrostatic potential the space itself?

 

No.

 

2) Have or not any physic meaning the unities in “electric constant of space”?

 

Only that they explain what it is a measure of. The permittivity (I assume that is what you mean) can be expressed in several ways, which of these do you think is significant:

[math]F = \frac{A \cdot s}{V} = \frac{J}{V^2} = \frac{W \cdot s}{V^2} = \frac{C}{V} = \frac{C^2}{J} = \frac{C^2}{N \cdot m} = \frac{s^2 \cdot C^2}{m^2 \cdot kg} = \frac{s^4 \cdot A^2}{m^2 \cdot kg} = \frac{s}{\Omega} = \frac{s^2}{H} [/math]

where F=farad, A=ampere, V=volt, C=coulomb, J=joule, m=metre, N=newton, s=second, W=watt, kg=kilogram, Ω=ohm, H=henry.

 

3) Is really earth, and maybe every cosmic body, an immense reservoir for free electric charges?

 

No.

 

4) Is it “so absurd” the idea of antimatter sub-particles in space as the matter sub-particles in cosmic bodies?

 

Yes. If there were antimatter particles throughout space, they would interact with and be annihilated by the matter particles thatw e know are there and we would see distinctive gamma ray spectra from this.

 

5) Is it electric charge an entity embedded in mass, or a byproduct of electric field?

 

Electric charge is an inherent property of certain particles.

 

6) Is it gravity a property of mass, or field?

 

Gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time by mass (and energy).

 

7) Is it excluded for sure the possibility of antimatters antigravity?

 

Not yet. The CERN Alpha project is preparing to measure this. But there are good theoretical reasons to think that antimatter must have the same gravitational effect as ordinary matter.

http://alpha.web.cern.ch/node/248

Link to comment
Share on other sites

---- My post is about issues that I have vague concepts. Maybe wrong ones. May be right ones. Is for this that I beg helps, from knowledgeable persons, in form “of questions”.

If any of my sentences seems like assertion, or as boasting assurance that I am right, I am very sorry. The cause is my lack, not only in physics, is it most in my English language. For this, I post in short sentences, that may seems like assertions.

Then you need to more proficient in asking quality questions.

 

"Let suppose that cosmic bodies possesses electric negative charges free." from your very first post, is not a question. Is is a supposition. From that, you make further suppositions. Your only question was if it made sense. No, it does not.

 

Before you even got to the second step, you should be asking whether your supposition is valid. Do materials have free charges? Yes, some do, but most do not. There are various ways in which a particle or material has a free charge, and many reasons why it might not. There is a lot to learn right in that one area of science.

 

You might consider that idea in light of your list. The answers you get are going to be based on, and refer to, physics you don't know. So what ultimate good will the answers be to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stranger
You haven't previously asked many questions, apart from general ones like "does it make sense?" (no).

By the way, have you noticed the "Quote" button below each post?
http://www.sciencefo...-several-parts/

It is very hard to separate what you are saying from what you have copied from others.

1) No.
2) Only that they explain what it is a measure of. The permittivity (I assume that is what you mean) can be expressed in several ways, which of these do you think is significant:

where F=farad, A=ampere, V=volt, C=coulomb, J=joule, m=metre, N=newton, s=second, W=watt, kg=kilogram, Ω=ohm, H=henry.
3) No

4) Yes. If there were antimatter particles throughout space, they would interact with and be annihilated by the matter particles thatw e know are there and we would see distinctive gamma ray spectra from this.
5) Electric charge is an inherent property of certain particles.
6) Gravity is a result of the curvature of space-time by mass (and energy).
7) Not yet. The CERN Alpha project is preparing to measure this. But there are good theoretical reasons to think that antimatter must have the same gravitational effect as ordinary matter.
---- Thanks Stranger for your categorical answers, about my questions. They, for the most of them, reject any my willingness to debate with you further about them, taking in to account they are from an expert, and so, the certainty of them is undisputable.
E pur si muove. Damn your insistence, Kramer.

 

Swanson
Then you need to be more proficient in asking quality questions.

---- If not being proficient --- does it is wrong, to make suppositions, hypothesis, questions, rebuts, in the speculation forum? And elaborate the substance of post in whatever level, even though naïve ( which by the way is easier to discard--- and earn some green points)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

---- If not being proficient --- does it is wrong, to make suppositions, hypothesis, questions, rebuts, in the speculation forum? And elaborate the substance of post in whatever level, even though naïve ( which by the way is easier to discard--- and earn some green points)?

If the posts do not live up to the standard we have for speculations, i.e. having some grounding in science, then yes, it is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.