Posted: Apr 21, 2018 12:22 am
by Yaniv
Thommo wrote:Ok, so one last go at this. This time with a paint picture!

Yaniv, this is the picture from the Gravity section of your hypothesis:

This is in fact in self-contradiction with what you call your "theory". Here's why, and how you can test it with a very easy experiment in your own home (which might explain why you're getting the reception you are from the thousands of scientists you contact). Try dropping an object from a variety of heights and timing how long it falls for.

There are three possibilities for the amount of force being exerted by these net positive charges of the Cosmos and of Earth on the net positive atom you depict:


If the polarisation occurs in the fashion you depict, then the only case that remains is case (i). The force from the cosmos is greater than the force from the Earth. This means positive charge is pushed downwards towards the Earth. So far, so good, we could see this as something like gravity.

However, we very quickly contradict your theory in a couple of ways:

(a) The polarisation occurs exactly opposite from the way you depict (the effect on the positive P and negative E components of the atom is they respond to the same net positive from the cosmos and the Earth).
(b) Gravity has been experimentally observed to behave almost exactly in proportion to the inverse square of the distance between two objects. In (i) as a net positive moves further from Earth the repulsion of Earth gets smaller and the repulsion of the cosmos gets bigger, leading to a net increase in the force towards the Earth's surface. This is a contradiction between prediction and experiment.

At close proximity to earth case (ii) best describes my theory and overall push is determined by surface charges more than net positive charge.