MavricheAdrian

Hi Bufofrog! Yes it is true. Unfortunately, formulas are not loaded through copy-paste. Hi MigL! Similarity does not mean "the same". The 'similarities' are not meaningless, if you read the material to the end, to understand why I referred to the similarities between the two physical fields

Abstract: . Starting from the similarity between an electric field with a gravitational field, it is demonstrated why (and how) the elementary electrical charge has this value. It is a parallel theory with that of quantum mechanics and is trying in an approximately-simplistic manner to describe the world of atomic processes. Keywords: elementary electrical charge; physical field; space-time; inflation – astronomy (General relativity) ; mechanical work; oscillation(vibration); gravity; the constant of the fine structure; I. Introduction: In general we find many articles relating to (and about) electrical charge, but nowhere does it say from where it has this value, it’s being considered an intrinsic property of elementary particles. [It will be considered as elementary particles, only those particles that have a "real existence", namely, those which have a bigger life of, let's say, 5 min, - therefore, the electron, the proton and the neutron - the other particles live such a short time, disintegrating almost instantaneously after it's being formed, so that we do not know if it can be considered particles or only "resonances" (oscillations) of determined energy[6]. "Confusion" between the action of an oscillation with the action of a "mass", we find it in Einstein's famous formulas of the energy too, namely ε = m and ε = hν. Describing the energy, they can be considered equal, namely m=hν. But we notice that on each side of equality there is a constant and one variable. So, by reducing constants, which are always the same, the variables will remain, that is m≈ ν, which means that the action of a mass, in our case of a one particle, can be confused with the action of a oscillation, and vice versa. It is also known that the proton and the neutron have an internal structure (quarks), but its are considered in all experiments as the standalone particles [1], therefore this is how it will be considerated also in this case.] II. Basic Ideas: In this material is starting from the similarity between electric field and the gravitational field, and without contradicting or entering into conflicting with quantum mechanics, it will be explain "why" the elementary electrical charge has this value. III. Grounds for the study: Between the gravitational field and the electric field, both with sources at rest, we will find the following: - similarities: - the mathematical formulas of the two physical fields (of the fields forces) are similars – directly proportional with the masses (respectively with the electrical charges) and inversely proportional to the square of the distances [3]; - the intensities of both fields are described by similar mathematical formulas; - and I would add, as manifestations of the fields: - different masses (under the influence of the unique gravitational field), local, 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]; - electric force, it may seem described by the geometry of space-time (as well as gravity), from Coulomb's formula, as follows: - we have the description of electric charges from the formula of the fine structure constant: , we replace in Coulomb's formula: on and we have = ⇒ = (I), where: • it is the constant of fine structure; • it is electric charge; • it is a mathematical constant; • is the permittivity in vacuum (or free space); • c it is the speed of light in vacuum; • it is Planck's constant; • it is the reduced Planck's constant (also called the Dirac constant); • it is the electric force, “which occurs between two particles with electric charge”; • it is the distance between particles; From the formula (1), it is observed that what we call electric force, it also exists in the absence of any charge carrier, it (the electric force) seeming more of an "environmental manifestation". As everything happens in an empty space, means that the electric force becomes (according to formula 1) a manifestation of the space-time membrane. - differences: - gravitational forces are just attractive [2]; - electric forces can be both, attractive and repulsive [6]; Since the similarities between the two fields are very high, it will apply what is known about the gravitational field [2], and to the electrical field, namely, to give it to the latter, a form which will be described by space-time geometry. If we were to simplistically interpret the gravitational field (which is just attractive), in the presence of the masses [2], the geometric shape of the space-time curve would be (let's call it positive curvature – downward) as in fig.1. .

If I use the function of "Coopy" and "PASTE", I can't load the drawings. However, I don't understand why there is a function at the bottom of the page "Drag files here to attach, or choose files..."?

Hi swansont, As I was telling Phi for All, I used what is at the bottom of the page "Drag files here to attach, or choose files...", If I do "COOPY" and "PASTE", the drawings do not load. I do not understand why? There are two forms of energy, which can change one into the other... I don't see where the problem is?

Hi Phi for All, I used what is at the bottom of the page "Drag files here to attach, or choose files...", If I do "COOPY" and "PASTE", the drawings do not load.

Both describe energy....

Hi Studiot, This is what I have done "choose file". electric charge.doc 1 (4).pdf Hi Swansont, This is what I have done "choose file". electric charge.doc 1 (4).pdf Hi Ghideon, I didn't talk about photon energy, but two different mathematical formulas describing the same thing, that is, energy. electric charge.doc 1 (4).pdf Hi Migl, This is what I have done "choose file". electric charge.doc 1 (4).pdf

Glad to see you dear membres! Meanwhile, I completed my theory, even accompanied by mathematical calculations. Please kindly take a critical look at it. Thank you electric charge.doc 1 (4).pdf

Hi Ghideon! This is the latest version, which I will try to publish.

Hello! I made changes to my theory. electric charge.pdf

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! 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!

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!

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 electric charge.pdf

There is nothing wrong 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. Please read all the material carefully . electric charge.pdf 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. Please read all the material carefully . 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.

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 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".

Seriously? You try to write a mathematical formula without a good theory. Not even F =m*a it would not make sense, if there was no theory behind it, to explain where these terms came from.

I did the theoretical part (theoretical-philosophical), and I wouldn't mind if someone built the math part. There are a lot of examples of collaborations, in which one did the theoretical part, and another one the mathematical part.

Of course I want to accompany it with a mathematical description. I'm working on this ... this part is harder...but I'm not quit

Even talking about the same thing. Look what Albert Einstein says in his book "Relativity" translated by Bruno Cermignani "Relativita" (Rome 1952): (I will do the English translation) "....Different from the electric and the magnetic field, the gravitational field benefits from a remarkable property, which is of fundamental importance in the following. Bodies that move under the unique influence of a gravitational field it receives an acceleration that does not depend at all neither of what material is and nor the physical condition of the body in question. For example, a piece of lead and a piece of wood fall exactly the same in a gravitational field (in vacuum) when they are left to fall or a resting state or at the same initial speed..... However, as is known from experience, for a given gravitational field the acceleration must always be the same, regardless of the nature and state of the body, then the ratio of inertial mass to gravitational mass must also be the same for all bodies. With an appropriate choice of units, we can make this ratio equal to one unit. We now have the following law: the gravitational mass of a body is equal to its inertial mass..." how to mean "have the same" "share with something else"? If you say that two people have the same type of pants, does that mean they share the same pants? I understand that they have the same pants, meaning each one has a pair that are the same. Does not mean that the masses generate the same gravitational field. I don't know where you got this from. I said that they (in the sense that it acquires) the same acceleration, not that it generates the same acceleration. It is not a repetition? When you say "different bodies", it is not sub-understands that they are different and as masses? Being different, it is understood and as a mass. Sound a little about..... In my language, it sounds good as I wrote, but I can transform it, something like the one in Einstein's book: Different bodies (under the unique influence of a gravitational field) have the same gravitational acceleration (it moves identically in the field. Now it's more English, it's more explicit? ....I hope I appreciate this forum because they are only relevant observations... P.S. I succeed (by mistake)to understand the tools of this forum. Thank you all for your understanding.

The rule is general, that's why it's called Generalized Relativity Theory. However, as mentioned above, the inertia intervenes. It's like in a game of power, wins who has greater force, and as each body acts on the other body with a force directly proportional to his mass, gains the larger body, which acts with a greater force. I don't know if I made myself understood. I will do everything in my power to make myself understood. Thank you for understanding

The Generalized Relativity Theory states that it is a general rule. Now if you want to challenge it, I have nothing against. Well what can I demonstrate, you have already put mathematical formula. The formula put forward by you shows that any body gains an acceleration that depends only on the larger body mass, does not depend on the body mass. Now about the acceleration that would give Earth to Jupiter, here comes the inertia, which is even greater as the mass grows. As the mass of the Earth is smaller than that of Jupiter, it means that it will act with a smaller force to Jupiter. Therefore, we can say that Jupiter "wins", acting with greater force over the Earth, which means that the Earth actually falls to Jupiter. I don't know if I made myself understood. I will do everything in my power to make myself understood. Thank you for understanding

It's about gravitational acceleration. These are the conclusions introduced by Galileo Galilei, following some of his famous experiments, on an inclined plane and in famous tower from Pisa. These conclusions were taken over by Newton, and introduced by Einstein in General Relativity. This is how it is used in all published materials. In fact, the acceleration is mutual, because they attract each other, but the force of attraction is greater in the case of the larger body. This means that we will only see the movement of the smaller body and the bigger one. In your case, we will visualize the acceleration of the Earth towards Jupiter, but the rule will be preserved "different masses have the same gravitational acceleration". It's not my rule, I didn't introduce it, and it was verified.

Please do not answer in that fashion as the quote function on this site cannot handle it properly. I respectfully suggest you find out what has already been discovered over the past couple of centuries of human investigation into electrical phenomena, instead of guessing. Do you know what the difference in repulsion between a proton and another proton and the repulsion between a proton and a neutron actually is ? You say this There have been heated arguments here as a result of this with members being accused of deliberately falsifying or misreporting the words of others. Thanks for your advice and understanding I apologize, I cannot answer separately. I can't find the right tools

First of all, I apologize, because English is not my native language. For the first statement(Is the difference between inflation and expansion of the universe? Both express the same thing, and it is considered a continuous process ....), I recognized my mistake, and I answered to Ghideon. Regarding the second statement(In atomic physics there are no real observations), I mentioned that at the atomic level we use uncertainty, probability, disturbance, which shows that we have no certainties of the real observation. Is also shown by the multitude of theories proposed to describe this subatomic world : M theory, Standard theory, Supergravity, problem of dark mater, dark energy, the collapse of the wave of probability, renormalization. All this shows us that we are only interpreting and we have no real observation(by this we mean that we do not have something visible or tangible).This is what I wanted to say