What do you guys think of this?
Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe
It does indeed explain some things that I had wondered about before.
Printable View
What do you guys think of this?
Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe
It does indeed explain some things that I had wondered about before.
That the way I've always looked at it, although I don't know nearly enough to explain it in those terms and details. I've always agreed with the notion that all forces or different manifestations of the same thing. I even think matter and electromegnetic energy are the same thing (I'm not sure if that's widely accepted - if anyone's interested in my reasoning, lemme know and I'll post it). But simply put - my personal theory is that gravity is caused by a variation of electromagnetic attraction between particles.
edit: Though I do dislike the use of the term "electric", as that implies a flow of electrons to most people.
What a bunch of garbage. Seems like the author has systematically misinterpreted everything in classical, relativistic, and quantum physics in order to arrive at an extremely strange conclusion.
In order for these "subtrons" to be the cause of the electron spin magnetic moment, they would have to be moving faster than light -- this calculation is a basic undergrad introduction to the quantum nature of subatomic particles.
The author tries to get around this by saying that special relativity is wrong. You know, the special relativity that has been experimentally verified thousands of times. While in the same paper, the author talks about how "E = mc^2" is a statement of the equivalence of mass with energy -- this equation is a direct result of special relativity and can be proven on a whiteboard using nothing more than simple geometry. How can it be wrong and right at the same time?
What the author doesn't get is that the only reason why E = mc^2 is true is because nothing can travel at light speed except light.
I could go on but it's a waste of time. What a bunch of deluded junk.
I got to this part:
and did a double take. Anyone who's seen that style demo (they're very common) will recognize that the point is not that the ball rolls into a depression, it's that "the depression" curves the grid the ball is moving along, causing it to displace sideways in relation to the grid -- such that if the grid is conceived as the real "ground" of space, the "straight" path of the ball curves in toward the center of "the depression", which is a more massive object. Of course, this is directly analogous to rolling a ball along a "flat" grid with a depression in it.Quote:
Einstein wasn’t so prudent when he introduced his “postulates.” Unfortunately, his unreal geometry doesn’t explain gravity either. The usual demonstration using heavy steel balls on a rubber sheet to represent ‘gravity wells’ relies on gravity as its own explanation!
It's kind of hard to remain interested and take the writer seriously after that.
I had the same objection to the rubber-sheet analogy when I was a teenager. There are two basic problems with the objection.
1. The rubber sheet analogy is an analogy -- a visualization tool.
2. The ball DOES curve even in the absence of gravity. A simple calculation using Lagrangian mechanics shows that it does. (You do have to assume that the ball cannot leave the sheet -- in spacetime, an object cannot "leave" spacetime, so this assumption is fine. The only purpose gravity serves in the actual demo is to hold the ball onto the sheet, because it's a 2D approximation and you don't want the ball moving in an extra dimension)
What the analogy cannot explain is why the ball rolls into the depression even if it was initially at rest. The answer is that it's not space that's curved -- it's spacetime that's curved. This is where the analogy fails -- you cannot explain curvature of spacetime by using a space-only representation.