Muhammad Faidzul

Yes There is no difference. It's just a term I named to specify the weak electric field of a neutral atom. Hence I defined the term in my first post above: The reason I don't use normal "electrostatic force" is because, normally, electrostatic can be any positive or negative standalone charge which has very strong force fields. Whereas the neutrostatic field has to contain both within a neutral atom to define the fields weakness. I'm in no way claiming it as a new force. I'm just defining it for simplicity and attempt to avoid confusion. Sorry but this is out of my league. Therefore, I cannot satisfy you on this.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I only tried to explain on my opinion on the given question. Sorry for failing to understand your question. Your help is much appreciated. Thank you. In the calculation, I attempted to show the similarities yet the difference between the two equations. Similarities: Both follows an inverse square law (which depends on distance, hence the distance variable in my calculation) Difference: Gravity: decreasing distance by 1 magnitude follows an increase in Force by 2 magnitudes Neutrostatic: decreasing distance by 1 magnitude follows an increase in force by 4 magnitudes For the high precision calculator, I used 3 calculators for double checks. 1. Wolfram Alpha (https://www.wolframalpha.com/) 2. Wolfram Mathematica (Computer Software) 3. Full precision calculator (https://www.mathsisfun.com/calculator-precision.html) The reason I showed the calculation is to seek opinion if the equation is flawed. Maybe the 3 calculator that gave me the same answer can be wrong too. As studiot pointed out, this isn't actually a theory. it is just a hypothesis. I stand corrected on that one. Initially my objective was to compare the similarities and differences between the forces of those two fields and form a discussion. It wasn't an attempt to replace GR as a whole. I apologize. Maybe I can change the topic title if possible. I was also hoping for a discussion whether the Neutrostatic field can have any effects on celestial bodies. And if so, what are the magnitude. I gave the example of a simple dipole is because the hydrogen atom is a dipole and is the most abundant matter in the universe. The equation gets a little more complicated as follow: Now let: d = 4x10⁸ meter, a = 5x10⁻¹¹ meter , b = 5x10⁻¹¹ meter, c = 5x10⁻¹¹ meter Without M3: -1.35x10⁻⁸² N With M3: -2.7x10⁻⁸² N As comparison to gravitational attraction for body M4=M1+M3=(1.67x10⁻²⁷kg)+(1.67x10⁻²⁷kg)=3.34x10⁻²⁷kg vs M2(1.67x10⁻²⁷kg) Without M3: 1.17x10⁻⁸¹ N With M3: 2.34x10⁻⁸¹ N So the conclusion is that both fields will double in force if we double the dipole and both will still be very weak at 400,000,000 meters away. I understand that up until now i only calculated in 1-dimensional plane. To simulate a sphere, we will need to use at least a 2-dimensional plane which involves calculating coulombs law in vector form. Since calculating just 3 bodies in non-vector form above have made the calculation complicated, I am at my limit to calculate coulombs law in the vector form with enough dipole samples to form a moderate sphere. This will also need to include the knowledge on how the dipoles will be arranged naturally (imagine an interstellar hydrogen cloud). For this matter I came here to find answers and interest if this is even a path worth trying. Even if we don't find it interesting enough, hopefully a few years ahead someone with interest can stumble upon this topic. I guess that the fields are too weak and the alternating field lines are too close together to cause massive charge migration that is needed to interfere with electronics. Since the 'dipoles' are always in motion, the fields are in constant oscillation within a certain static position outside the sphere. The best it can do is vibrate an atom in that static position if the field is strong enough. An atom will give off light when vibrated. Therefore, I speculate that the corona layer of the sun has something to do with it. Image: https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/the-corona.php Again, I would like to apologize if this topic didn't follow the title.

I didn't and i couldn't claim it does. That's why I said it does not hold up to the equivalent principle. In the previous image, i showed a dipole and a double dipole. therefore for this diagram, it was meant to visualize a body with multiple dipole. You can pair every positive charge with a negative charge in that diagram. Even if it isn't perfectly symmetrical as shown, the weak field lines will still show up radially outwards. Given enough charge pairs that can make a big sphere, the weak neutrostatic field will likely be tangent perpendicular to the sphere. Up until now i have only shown that positive and negative have equal charge. For the gravitational calculation above, i neglected the negative charge mass because it is negligible. You cannot shield the electric field of a dipole this way. if you plan of putting a flat piece of shield in between the charge spheres, the charged spheres will attract to the shield instead due to the polarization or charge migration within the shield. If a hollow spherical shield if placed instead, only the interior of the hollow sphere is shielded. But still, the weak neutrostatic field still penetrates the sphere because the resolution of the alternating field lines is at an atomic level and due to the weak fields, only polarization of individual atoms of the sphere will occur. Hope this ugly drawing could help visualize. For the normal shielding, the charge migration causes an imbalance to the spheres electric field. The superposition of the exterior field and the interior field due to charge migration cancels each other out within the sphere. Therefore the total field is 0. As for the neutrostatic field, not only it does not cancel, but it slightly increases the field strength within the sphere itself. Even if the field strength is strong enough to cause charge migration, the small resolution of the alternating field lines does not allow the charge to migrate between left and right of the sphere. therefore the field will just penetrate as above.

My apologies. As an infant in physics, i can agree with you that i have zero probability in replacing General Relativity. But as any normal person, I will randomly come up with wild guesses on how stuff works. therefore i am here to just spill it out. I am bounded by my limited knowledge in this field as I am just a mechatronics graduate. Therefore for my calculation, I can only present in high school physics standard. Please correct me where necessary. For the figure above, there are two dipoles. I am interested in finding the force Fn. From my understanding from using superposition principle, I can calculate Fn by adding and subtracting the force of individual charge. Therefore: k = coulombs constant = 9x10⁹, q = elementary charge = 1.6x10⁻¹⁹ Let : d = 4x10⁸ meter (rough distance between earth and the moon) b = bohr radius 5x10⁻¹¹ meter for M1 c = bohr radius 5x10⁻¹¹ meter for M2 Using wolfram calculator: Now let’s calculate using our normal gravitational equation. M1 = M2 = Proton mass + Electron mass = 1.67x10⁻²⁷ + 9.1x10⁻³¹ = 1.67x10⁻²⁷ G = gravitational constant = 6.7x10⁻¹¹ M1 = M2 = 1.67x10⁻²⁷ kg Let: d= 4x10⁸ meter (rough distance between earth and the moon) Using wolfram calculator: At d= 4x10⁸ meter, the value of the neutrostatic force Fn (1.35x10⁻⁸² N) isn’t far off from the gravitational force Fg (1.17x10⁻⁸¹ N). But if we reduce distance d, we will notice that Fn will overwhelm Fg by several magnitudes. Below is a table I calculated using both formula with varying the distance 'd' between the objects. So the result doesn't follow the same value as the gravitational equation. But the interesting thing here is, at just 4 meters apart, the neutrostatic attraction is around 1,000,000,000,000,000 time stronger than that of the gravitational attraction. So, if the calculation is correct, the neutrostatic field is something that will certainly stand out more compared to gravity since the vacuum of space will still hold an atom per several meters away. In the formation of stars, the interstellar clouds of hydrogen might use this force to squeeze together into a sphere. When enough matter exist, the center of the sphere would be under high pressure and undergo fusion. The interstellar cloud must be very cold for this to happen. Otherwise, the motion of the dipoles might prevent them from polarizing with each other. Perhaps the continuous motion of the dipoles is what reduces the net neutrostatic forces between the two dipoles in my calculation. At the end of the video, I showed the field in motion in the Gravitational heating effect if you're interested. I wonder if there is still net attraction when the fields oscillate. The sphere is not a plum pudding model of an atom. It is a visualization of charge distribution on a conductive sphere. I am aware of this since the neutrostatic field mainly rely on the bohr radius, this hypothesis (not theory) does not follow the equivalent principle when the bohr radius is significanly over or below the 5e-11meter distance. Therefore in plasma or in neutron state (I imagine neutrons have its electron very close to its proton), it couldn't hold up. If you mean by placing a conductor in the middle of the dipole, then the space permittivity will increase and reduce the neutrostatic field. Similarly if we can just simply reduce the bohr radius of the atom it would have the same effect. A neutron might fit the description. And for this, I will acknowledge that it is an obstacle with mainstream science. Anyway, all of this is just my two cent

Hello, Its been a couple of years since i came up with this idea. Just want to share with you a video that i made explaining this theory. Basically, it is explained from an electrostatic perspective of a neutral atom that i call the neutrostatic field. It is the parasitic electric field from a dipole atom that we consider 'neutral'. But both charge is not occupying the same space at the same time so the net field cannot be absolute zero at any distance from the atom. Since the positive nucleus and the negative electron is separated by the bohr radius, then their is always a net weak field in any space around it. Currently I'm attempting to do some simple calculation to support this theory and will share the result once finished. Let me know if this theory has some potential, thanks.