Electricity explains everything

[EllyDlight]

I believe that fundamentally the universe is simple and easy to understand. All complexities are massive quantities of interacting basic particles.

The only particles necessary for understanding are electrons and positrons. Quarks are just made up by people.

So try on the thought of electrons and positrons being spinning magnets. A neutron then is a collection of an equal amount of electrons and positrons so that it creates a neutral net charge. A proton is a collection of electrons and positrons with one more positron than electron. Atomic structure is created because a neutron is diamagnetic when exposed to the magnetic fields of a proton and an electron. For every proton, it creates enough diamagnetic energy to float one electron near it. This is why electrons are a distance away from the nucleus and do not crash into protons. It is also why when more protons than neutrons exist in a nucleus, an electron does crash into it and a neutron is created. This will continue happening until a magnetic equilibrium is reached.

It makes sense that in space, a collection of these magnets in equilibrium could collide with other magnets to form structure like this everywhere. And then it is massive amounts of these interacting magnetic structures that create our reality.

Then simply, photons do not really exist. What we percieve as light is resonance of these magnets. Resonance travels through particles as waves. Sound travels through particles as waves. Light and sound differ only in frequency. Waves travel differently through different densities.

When you think about the universe as a tremendous amount of spinning, vibrating magnets it clears up a lot of questions.

Now we can think of the sun and stars as superconductors with super cold dense centers. Superconductors are what happens when a substance is perfectly diamagnetic. The protons the sun is constantly spewing out interact with gases and create plasma that explain all solar phenomena. Plasma then is just a state of matter that is so conductive that atomic structure has broken apart and all particles flow.

Then neutron stars are more dense stars and black holes are more dense neutron stars. The only reason we can't see a black hole is because the particles that make it up are not resonating at the frequency of light.

The matrix of the universe is held together by the magnetic fields of these ultra-dense collections of particles and all the interacting magnetic fields of all particles.

All universal phenomena is explainable through electricity and completely reproducable.

All of a sudden antigravity isn't so complicated. All that you need to do is displace the magnetic flux lines of the earth or whatever field you are in with a superconductor. If magnetic field lines are going around a superconductor, then all forces are going around the superconductor. This explains quantum locking.

People have been overcomplicating the universe by making up particles and names for forces that are just different instances of electromagnetism. I think it's time to concentrate on what we can observe.

It's more than likely that this idea has been thought of by people a long time ago and that classified technology has been created by understanding these concepts.

What I'm looking for is input and real life observations from other people to improve my own and humanity's understanding, especially relating to diamagnetic materials which I believe explains strong and weak nuclear force.

Thank you

note: This post is possibly repeated on other forums. This is because I'm looking for as much input as possible and I've found that other forums are banning me for creating this post. ??

[ajb]

If quarks are just made up, then can you explain the famous results of deep inelastic scattering, for starters?

[Strange]

 

Then simply, photons do not really exist.

 

So how do you explain the photoelectric effect and the "ultraviolet catastrophe"?

 

All of a sudden antigravity isn't so complicated.

 

Then why hasn't anyone demonstrated it yet?

[Sensei]

Then simply, photons do not really exist.

Buy laser....

 

What we percieve as light is resonance of these magnets. Resonance travels through particles as waves. Sound travels through particles as waves. Light and sound differ only in frequency. Waves travel differently through different densities.

Photons are traveling through vacuum, if you don't know..

 

Sound waves are traveling through medium that's made of regular matter, and cannot pass through vacuum, as there is no medium.

Which can be seen and heard on videos on YouTube made by ordinary people making rockets. The higher altitude the less sound.

 

note: This post is possibly repeated on other forums. This is because I'm looking for as much input as possible and I've found that other forums are banning me for creating this post. ??

Not really surprising..

[EllyDlight]

If quarks are just made up, then can you explain the famous results of deep inelastic scattering, for starters?

I don't see how that is contradictory to what I'm saying, momentum either keeps going the direction it's going, or it goes in a different direction.

 

 

So how do you explain the photoelectric effect and the "ultraviolet catastrophe"?

 

Then why hasn't anyone demonstrated it yet?

I'm not saying that light doesn't exist. I'm just saying that light is excited particles and the excitement moves around as momentum. It is not contradictory to the photoelectric effect or ultraviolet catasrophe.

 

Antigravity has been demonstrated. Just watch any video about superconductors and you can see levitation. I've only seen it in a small scale, I'm just thinking it would probably work in a larger scale. Also it's possible that someone has done this and it's classified. Also it's possible that no one has done this because we haven't tried yet. I'm not necessarily right, I'm just saying these are my observations so far and I'm trying to observe life with this consideration and see what happens.

 

I'm also not saying sound and light have the exact same properties. I'm saying they differ in frequencies and that frequency difference is the reason they exhibit different properties. I agree with you that sound can't travel through a vacuum. In fact I'm not so sure light can either? From what I can see space is not a perfect vacuum, it just has way less particles in it--a near vacuum. Does a perfect even exist? I've never seen it.

 

 

I'm not trying to be a dick and say anybody is wrong and I'm right. All I'm doing is making an observation and seeing how reality either does or does not fit into this observation.

[elfmotat]

I don't see how that is contradictory to what I'm saying, momentum either keeps going the direction it's going, or it goes in a different direction.

 

He's asking why there appear to be three distinct lumps inside nucleons.

 

 

I'm not saying that light doesn't exist. I'm just saying that light is excited particles and the excitement moves around as momentum.

 

Momentum is a property, not a thing.

 

 

Antigravity has been demonstrated. Just watch any video about superconductors and you can see levitation.

 

That's not antigravity, that's magnetism. "Antigravity" has a specific meaning: repulsive gravity. Not magnetism, or something to counteract gravity, but repulsive gravity itself.

 

 

I'm also not saying sound and light have the exact same properties. I'm saying they differ in frequencies and that frequency difference is the reason they exhibit different properties. I agree with you that sound can't travel through a vacuum. In fact I'm not so sure light can either? From what I can see space is not a perfect vacuum, it just has way less particles in it--a near vacuum. Does a perfect even exist? I've never seen it.

 

Light does not need a medium to propagate. It's just an electromagnetic field.

[EllyDlight]

I'm saying that gravity IS electromagnetism. So antigravity is a superconductor.

I think light does need a medium to propagate. It propagates in the nearly vacuum environment of space.

Electromagnetic fields are created by charged particles.

Edited November 8, 2014 by EllyDlight

[ACG52]

 

 

I'm saying that gravity IS electromagnetism

The two behave quite differently, and follow different mathematical laws.

 

 

I think light does need a medium to propagate. It propagate in the nearly vacuum environment of space.

There is no medium in space, and electromagnetic radiation does not require a medium. Indeed, it slows down in any medium.

 

As I suggested on another forum, take continuing education classes at your local community college and take Intro to Physics.

[elfmotat]

 

I'm saying that gravity IS electromagnetism. So antigravity is a superconductor.

I think light does need a medium to propagate. It propagates in the nearly vacuum environment of space.

Electromagnetic fields are created by charged particles.

 

 

The gravitational field couples to a rank-2 tensor (the stress-energy tensor) and the electromagnetic field couples to a rank-1 tensor (four-current). The EM field simply does not have enough degrees of freedom to explain gravity.

[EllyDlight]

 

The gravitational field couples to a rank-2 tensor (the stress-energy tensor) and the electromagnetic field couples to a rank-1 tensor (four-current). The EM field simply does not have enough degrees of freedom to explain gravity.

 

Why can't it just be that different collections of particles have different strength magnetic fields? Magnetism can be extremely weak or extremely strong depending on the magnet. Why can't gravity be the pull of a magnetic field?

[elfmotat]

 

Why can't it just be that different collections of particles have different strength magnetic fields? Magnetism can be extremely weak or extremely strong depending on the magnet. Why can't gravity be the pull of a magnetic field?

 

I just explained why not: there aren't enough degrees of freedom in the EM field. The only known way (AFAIK) to get both the EM field and the gravitational field together is by adding extra spacial dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories, for example string theories. So now we're getting into unified field theories. Anyway, this is probably well beyond the scope of what you're talking about.

[EllyDlight]

 

I just explained why not: there aren't enough degrees of freedom in the EM field. The only known way (AFAIK) to get both the EM field and the gravitational field together is by adding extra spacial dimensions in Kaluza-Klein type theories, for example string theories. So now we're getting into unified field theories. Anyway, this is probably well beyond the scope of what you're talking about.

I don't understand. Enough degrees of freedom in which EM field? Earth's EM field?

[ACG52]

I don't understand. Enough degrees of freedom in which EM field? Earth's EM field?

Any EM field.Em simply does not behave like gravity.

[Mordred]

To to what ACG52 is saying there are particles that are not influenced by the electromagnetic field. No matter how strong that field is. The particle ignores it. Neutrino is one example. However that particle is influenced by gravity.

 

Some particles have no strong force interaction. Others do see wiki on the electron (interactions)

 

Not all particles behave the same way. They have different forces they interact with. Some interact with only 3 of the 4 forces.

 

Dark matter is even worse its only known (confirmed) interaction is gravity

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(physics_and_chemistry)

 

Degrees of freedom is a bit trickier to explain. A large determinant is the particles spin see link above

[EllyDlight]

I think I just figured something out guys! Gravity! This is exciting for me. I found this website by someone named Franklin Hu. He says:
"The proton and electron are not symmetric. The protons are typically bound to a material while the electrons are relatively free to wander. The asymmetry leads to situation where a typical mass will have more protons than electrons, or will somehow have a slightly positive charge. This slight charge imbalance added up over the mass of the Earth makes for a very large positive charge field coming from the Earth and other massive objects. This positive field pulls on any neutral matter like a charged balloon attracts neutrally charged pieces of paper. This causes any uncharged matter to stick to the Earth like a bad case of static cling. This is the fundamental cause of gravity. Gravity is nothing more than a strong electrostatic field and therefore this unites the electrostatic and gravity force. "

Gravity is not separate from electricity, it's just static electricity. Wow. Does this make sense to anyone else?

check out franklinhu.com

 

i think this guy is on to a lot of basic sense

[elfmotat]

I think I just figured something out guys! Gravity! This is exciting for me. I found this website by someone named Franklin Hu. He says:

"The proton and electron are not symmetric. The protons are typically bound to a material while the electrons are relatively free to wander. The asymmetry leads to situation where a typical mass will have more protons than electrons, or will somehow have a slightly positive charge. This slight charge imbalance added up over the mass of the Earth makes for a very large positive charge field coming from the Earth and other massive objects. This positive field pulls on any neutral matter like a charged balloon attracts neutrally charged pieces of paper. This causes any uncharged matter to stick to the Earth like a bad case of static cling. This is the fundamental cause of gravity. Gravity is nothing more than a strong electrostatic field and therefore this unites the electrostatic and gravity force. "

 

Gravity is not separate from electricity, it's just static electricity. Wow. Does this make sense to anyone else?

check out ...

 

i think this guy is on to a lot of basic sense

 

If all you know about physics is the inverse-square laws for gravity and electrostatics, I can see how it would be tempting to think that they would be related in some way. Unfortunately, things are not that simple. First: if the gravitational field is really just a small positive electrostatic field, what do you think would happen to positive charges on Earth? They would be shot into space! But we can accumulate positive charge in the lab very easily without it having any effect on the weight of anything, so this idea clearly has to be wrong.

 

A more sophisticated answer is the one I was giving before: the EM field does not have enough degrees of freedom to explain gravity.

 

An even more convincing answer is the one Mordred gave: some particles do not interact electromagnetically, for example neutrinos, while all particles interact gravitationally.

 

And one final killing blow: if gravitational fields were really EM fields, then they would have no effect on light! One of the key aspects of the EM field is that it is linear. This means that the field will not interact with itself. Light itself is an EM field, and so it should not interact with external EM fields. But one of the famous experiments to test general relativity was the famous light-bending experiment, where the deflection of light due to gravity as it passed near the sun was measured. So we know that gravity does effect the path of light, meaning it cannot possibly be explained by EM fields!

[ajb]

I don't see how that is contradictory to what I'm saying, momentum either keeps going the direction it's going, or it goes in a different direction.

 

So as I kind of expected, you misunderstood my question. There is some good evidence for the internal structure of the nucleons. In particular for three 'lumps' that fit our models based on quarks.

 

It thus appears that you are no aware of the evidence for quarks and so no-one can take your claim that they do not exist with any credence.

 

You ideas that electromagnetic theory and gravity are the same is also wrong. It is true that in many respects they are similar, especially in the static limit. It is also true they are formally similar in the sense that they are geometric and a similar geometric point of view holds for both. However, as already pointed out, the theories are different, they use different fields (this is related to the different degrees of freedom mentioned already) and they have very different actions.

 

You just will not be able to explain any real gravitational physics by trying to use just electromagnetic theory.

 

p.s.

 

elfmotat's example of bending of light in gravitational fields is a good example. We see this in astronomy as gravitational lensing for example.

Edited November 8, 2014 by ajb

[Strange]

I'm not saying that light doesn't exist. I'm just saying that light is excited particles and the excitement moves around as momentum. It is not contradictory to the photoelectric effect or ultraviolet catasrophe.

 

These phenomena can only be explained if electromagnetic radiation is quantised. You said it isn't therefore you cannot explain them.

 

But hang on ... "light is excited particles". So it is quantised? Please make up your mind.

 

Antigravity has been demonstrated. Just watch any video about superconductors and you can see levitation.

 

Oh, that sort of antigravity. You mean things like fridge magnets, string, floors and ladders. I thought you meant some means of controlling gravity. Silly me.

 

I've only seen it in a small scale, I'm just thinking it would probably work in a larger scale.

 

You should go to Tokyo and travel on the monorail. That is pretty large scale.

I'm saying that gravity IS electromagnetism.

 

They have completely different properties.

 

So antigravity is a superconductor.

Superconductors do not show any effect on gravity. Just because a magnet can exert a force does not make it gravity.

I think light does need a medium to propagate.

 

Then you should be able to provide some evidence of this. For example, sound is affected by the movement of the medium it travels through. Perhaps an experiment to detect the effect of the movement of the medium on light? Do you think anyone has ever tried that?

 

Also, if sound cannot travel through the (near perfect) vacuum of space, how can light?

Edited November 8, 2014 by Strange

[EllyDlight]

 

If all you know about physics is the inverse-square laws for gravity and electrostatics, I can see how it would be tempting to think that they would be related in some way. Unfortunately, things are not that simple. First: if the gravitational field is really just a small positive electrostatic field, what do you think would happen to positive charges on Earth? They would be shot into space! But we can accumulate positive charge in the lab very easily without it having any effect on the weight of anything, so this idea clearly has to be wrong.

 

A more sophisticated answer is the one I was giving before: the EM field does not have enough degrees of freedom to explain gravity.

 

An even more convincing answer is the one Mordred gave: some particles do not interact electromagnetically, for example neutrinos, while all particles interact gravitationally.

 

And one final killing blow: if gravitational fields were really EM fields, then they would have no effect on light! One of the key aspects of the EM field is that it is linear. This means that the field will not interact with itself. Light itself is an EM field, and so it should not interact with external EM fields. But one of the famous experiments to test general relativity was the famous light-bending experiment, where the deflection of light due to gravity as it passed near the sun was measured. So we know that gravity does effect the path of light, meaning it cannot possibly be explained by EM fields!

I totally see how light bending would contradict this theory BUT it actually doesn't! This is the beautiful simplicity of it. I think that space is actually made up of pairs of electrons and positrons. Space and all vacuum is completely full of these particles. The reason we think they annihilate each other on contact is because all of their kinetic energy is released! These particles still exist and remain neutral. Light travels through these particles, the aether. And then the aether can actually change in density around the static electricity of the Earth. It is then the dense aether that is bending the light!

 

Also positive charges DO fly into space! It's just that the electrostatic force is so weak that these objects have to be very light. If you do an experiment where you fill a soap bubble with positive particles, it will rise. If you fill a soap bubble with negative particles, it will fall!

It makes sense that positrons and electrons attract each other simply because of pressure. Think of one positron and one electron having the same waveform but opposite, so that as one goes up, the other goes down. These wave forms will cancel each other out creating an area of low pressure between then making it seem like these particles are attracted. Conversely if you have two electrons with the same wave form, the wave form will amplify between them and they will appear to be repelled.

 

Magnetism now makes sense!

[Strange]

I'm not trying to ... say anybody is wrong and I'm right.

 

But that is exactly what you are doing.

 

 

All I'm doing is making an observation and seeing how reality either does or does not fit into this observation.

 

Then you will need to show that all existing theories and the mountains of evidence for them are wrong. So please explain, in appropriate mathematical detail, how you plan to replace:

 

- electromagnetism (starting with Maxwell's equations, perhaps)

- quantum theory (from the black body spectrum to quantum electrodynamics to quantum chronodynamics)

- the standard model of particle physics

- special and general relativity

 

Because you are saying that all of these are wrong.

 

You may claim (people like you frequently do) that none of that changes, that "the mathematics for my theory is exactly the same", etc. In which case, what is the point of your theory? (And can you prove that the mathematics of your theory is is the same? No, of course not.)

 

In fact it isn't a theory, it is just a story you have made up for yourself to make it feel as if you understand. This is just intellectually lazy; it would be more productive to actually study science instead of rejecting it like this.

[mississippichem]

Also positive charges DO fly into space! It's just that the electrostatic force is so weak that these objects have to be very light. If you do an experiment where you fill a soap bubble with positive particles, it will rise. If you fill a soap bubble with negative particles, it will fall!

 

 

Please provide a link to this experiment.

 

If this is true then why don't solutions of electrolytes display this sort of behavior?

[Sensei]

I think I just figured something out guys! Gravity! This is exciting for me. I found this website by someone named Franklin Hu. He says:

"The proton and electron are not symmetric. The protons are typically bound to a material while the electrons are relatively free to wander. The asymmetry leads to situation where a typical mass will have more protons than electrons, or will somehow have a slightly positive charge. This slight charge imbalance added up over the mass of the Earth makes for a very large positive charge field coming from the Earth and other massive objects. This positive field pulls on any neutral matter like a charged balloon attracts neutrally charged pieces of paper. This causes any uncharged matter to stick to the Earth like a bad case of static cling. This is the fundamental cause of gravity. Gravity is nothing more than a strong electrostatic field and therefore this unites the electrostatic and gravity force. "

 

Gravity is not separate from electricity, it's just static electricity. Wow. Does this make sense to anyone else?

check out franklinhu.com

 

i think this guy is on to a lot of basic sense

 

Have you heard about oil drop experiment?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

 

In this experiment we're first letting oil fail to ground - electric field is present on plates.

Oil drop is failing because it's uncharged = equal quantity of positive (protons) and negative particles (electrons).

 

Then we're starting shutting to oil from x-ray gun,

x-rays cause ionization of oil drop,

electrons are ejected from it,

and now on oil drop is positively charged.

 

And we're NOW able to control oil. Whether it has to levitate. Or whether it has to fly up...

[elfmotat]

I totally see how light bending would contradict this theory BUT it actually doesn't! This is the beautiful simplicity of it. I think that space is actually made up of pairs of electrons and positrons. Space and all vacuum is completely full of these particles. The reason we think they annihilate each other on contact is because all of their kinetic energy is released! These particles still exist and remain neutral. Light travels through these particles, the aether. And then the aether can actually change in density around the static electricity of the Earth. It is then the dense aether that is bending the light!

 

Also positive charges DO fly into space! It's just that the electrostatic force is so weak that these objects have to be very light. If you do an experiment where you fill a soap bubble with positive particles, it will rise. If you fill a soap bubble with negative particles, it will fall!

It makes sense that positrons and electrons attract each other simply because of pressure. Think of one positron and one electron having the same waveform but opposite, so that as one goes up, the other goes down. These wave forms will cancel each other out creating an area of low pressure between then making it seem like these particles are attracted. Conversely if you have two electrons with the same wave form, the wave form will amplify between them and they will appear to be repelled.

 

Magnetism now makes sense!

 

First, you've ignored some other criticism such as why there appear to be three lumps inside nucleons if quarks don't exist, as you claim.

 

Second, several of us took the time to give several explanations for why gravity can't be electromagnetism. You're ignoring some of them (gravity is spin-2 while EM is spin-1, gravity is highly nonlinear while EM is linear, not everything interacts electromagnetically while everything interacts gravitationally), and giving half-baked nonsense explanations for the others. Positive charges certainly DON'T fly into space, and there's no such thing as aether. You're ignoring real science in favor of some seemingly-clever idea that is trivially false. You're not the first person to have this idea, and it's already been falsified in a thousand different ways. It simply does not work. Your time and effort would be much better spent learning actual physics.

 

You're heading down the road to crackpotville. Turn back while you still can!

[Mordred]

Crackpot Ville has a decent population. Don't imagine it's too peaceful though lol

It's amazing though we can identify which quarks exist in which particles. We can determine their individual mass enough to know they all have different mass. Yet people still want to believe they don't exist.

Especially since the first quarks was discovered in 1964.

 

I Should note quarks is the only elementary particles that are influenced by all 4 forces

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I have hidden a post which contained nothing apart from a jibe at the OP - please feel free to contribute but we have grown tired of posts which merely throw insults and have no substance.