Cosmology Views

Response to Thornhill's Electro-gravity

It is my opinion in his EU 2015 talk, Wall neglects critical aspects of Maxwell's work. The talk was noted in a recent Facebook comment; I had forgotten it.
This electro-gravity is odd when he is clearly trying to  shoe horn an electric force into an awkward explanation for gravity.

This is my attempt to compress two  200+ page books into 1 post. My 2 relevant books are Redefining Gravity and Practical Atomic Model.

Wal starts with confusion about mass. A better start is with Maxwell, who provides a solid foundation toward gravity.

Maxwell described 2 particles, proton and electron. Both have a charge behavior, where there is an instantaneous and mutual force present between charges. This is accomplished by a charge field  which emanates from each. The proton's field is positive, while the electron's is negative. This mutual force depends on the combination at the particle. Same polarity is a force of repulsion, while opposite is attraction.

Maxwell defined the effect of free-space on these fields, leading to a constant in the force equation. Popular descriptions of these behaviors defined by Maxwell, like in Wikipedia, consistently compare them to gravity because of their innate similarity as inverse-square mutual forces.

Maxwell lived after Newton, but Maxwell did not contemplate gravity and Newton could not consider Maxwell.

Here is my proposed transition for gravity.

There are 2 fundamental particles, electron and proton as described by Maxwell, but since then, both have a measured mass and size.

They have 2 fundamental behaviors: 1) they react to other charges with a mutual, instantaneous force. Their charge can be + or - polarity. This is Maxwell without change.

2) They also react to other masses with a mutual, instantaneous force.  Each particle emanates a mass field. This field has no polarity and is always attractive. Its behavior is the same as a charge but its free-space behaviors are different because the force is much weaker. The gravitational constant is an attempt to describe the effect of intervening space, though lacking the work done by Maxwell to describe the behavior by defining specific parameters, like done with Coulomb's constant.

The medium can provide different values for gravity, replacing those of free-space, just like for Maxwell's electric and magnetic fields. Testing with superconductors reveals gravity can be affected (like light) by a change in the medium between masses. This suggests a reason for variations in the gravitational constant, which represents the medium at the time of measurement.

This explains gravity as a distinct, separate force from the electric force.

Essentially, the 2 fundamental particles have a simple internal structure:
1) the energy required to emanate the mass field and react to the combination of external mass fields.

2) the energy required to emanate the charge field and react to the combination of external charge fields.

Both particles are created having a fixed energy for its mass reactivity and its charge reactivity.

This theory explains both antiparticles and atomic mass defect.

An antiparticle arises when the charge polarity in a particle flips. This polarity is a distinct, internal behavior.

A positron is observed only when an electron flips polarity. This occurs in particle pair production and beta plus decay. An antiproton is observed only in particle colliders using very heavy nuclei, when a proton flips its polarity.

The nuclear strong interaction or the strong force is not explained correctly in the standard model. Neither is the atomic mass defect.

Electro-gravity also fails for both.

Scientists have successfully measured the size of several nuclei. Even with the most efficient sphere packing, the volume is too small for the nucleons.

Atomic mass defect is the measurement of a lower mass in the nucleus than the sum of their at-rest masses. A particle having an internal cohesive mass reactivity behavior is required to explain how a volume reduction affects its measured mass. This is not a permanent change. Protons ejected from a nucleus are no longer compressed and have their original mass reactivity.

Scientists have concluded that after compressing protons together to within only a few femtometers, the mutual repulsive force flipped to attractive. This is the foundation of the so called strong force. The 2 spheres are in contact at only a point. Equilibrium can be disturbed resulting in a flip back to repulsion, which is the so called weak force.

Electrons are needed in the nucleus for its stability among its protons. 2 or 3 protons in mutual contact are unstable. Adding a (-) electron to the (+) protons brings stability, as in 2H or 3He, or 4p + 2e = 4He.

The electrons having contact with protons in the nucleus are important for the mix. 5 protons can be packed in a cube with the 1 in the middle having no external surface. There is no stable isotope with 5 nucleons, so there is no number of attached electrons which can stabilize that nucleus.

There is never a neutron particle in a nucleus, but only a proton having an attached electron. Wal's short talk does not explain the nucleus because it did not go to such detail.

Wal proposes a distortion of the electron shells can result in sufficient charge separation to explain Earth's gravity. Earth's core, mantle, and crust have many heavy elements having a variety of many concentric rings of electrons. The solid state of matter typically consists of atoms and molecules taking a lattice configuration. Wal shows deformation of only simple hydrogen atoms.

It is very difficult to comprehend the required consistent deformation  of nickel, iron, and lead electron shells throughout the crust to sustain this mechanism for an illusion of gravity. An actual force is much simpler.

Wal often talks of EU principles like  simplicity and going back to classical physics.

Electro-gravity violates these EU principles.

I believe my roughly defined alternative is much closer to following those EU principles.