Is gravity electro-static in nature?
- both gravity and electric static are inverse square force fields
- the earth's surface is negatively charged
- like electrons on the perimeter of an atom
- hence stuff on the surface could be attracted to a positively charged core
- electric gravity would allow the so-called universal gravity constant to vary over time and place, depending on the internal charge of the nearby celestial body.
- this would explain why big G is difficult to measure with accuracy on Earth - because it varies !
- hence lower gravity during dinosaur era, allowing them to grow big.
- electric gravity fits in with celestial bodies exhibiting electromagnetic behaviour.
- gravity depends on mass while electrostatic depends on charge, but since all atoms are made from charged mass, this is ok.
- if you went into the Earth's core you'd be electrocuted.
- other theories of gravity are shitty, such as Hibert's general theory of relativity.

so I think electro-static is the cause of gravity. What you think?

It isn't

Venus has no magnetic field. But it has gravity. Hope that helps.

Could it be that the Earth is an... electro rock?



The above video also accurately depicts the battle that takes place whenever a competing theory of gravity turns up.

I think being electrocuted would be the least of your worries if you woke up in the earth's core.

Yeah, Hilbert's general theory of relativity would never fill a Bed & Breakfast room never mind a Grand Hotel.

electricgravity1 wrote:so I think electro-static is the cause of gravity. What you think?

I think people who notice (or more likely read on the internet) a few facts that have some superficial similarities, and then proceed to invent some rectally extracted fantasy linking them together, should fuck off and get some actual education.

The Earth is round. Tomatoes are also round. Could the Earth actually be a giant tomato?

Its an apple as it has a core.

If the Earth is electric and sucks stuff towards itself then it's a vacuum cleaner.

Gravity = electro-sucking.

Blackadder wrote:If the Earth is electric and sucks stuff towards itself then it's a vacuum cleaner.

Gravity = electro-sucking.

Well it wouldn't be safe to put all those satterlights in orbit without something to clean away the dangerous debris.

Blackadder wrote:Venus has no magnetic field. But it has gravity. Hope that helps.

It would be more helpful in the discussion of " Is gravity caused by magnetism? "
But this is a " Is gravity caused by electro-static " discussion.

No magnetism means there is no net circulating general electric current in venus. Venus does however have an electric field, so this supports the electric gravity theory.

Arcanyn wrote:The Earth is round. Tomatoes are also round. Could the Earth actually be a giant tomato?

I understand the point u are attempting to make. The Earth fails on other tomato criteria, e.g. - it doesn't grow on a tomato plant - so its not a tomato.
Now lets see if you can find a failing criteria for why gravity can't be electric.

10 replies so far, and none have been able to criticise the electric gravity theory, they are all down in the bottom 4 ranks of the pyramid of reason. Even if u could get to rank 3, that would be the best reply so far.

electricgravity1 wrote:

Blackadder wrote:Venus has no magnetic field. But it has gravity. Hope that helps.

It would be more helpful in the discussion of " Is gravity caused by magnetism? "
But this is a " Is gravity caused by electro-static " discussion.

No magnetism means there is no net circulating general electric current in venus. Venus does however have an electric field, so this supports the electric gravity theory.

Arcanyn wrote:The Earth is round. Tomatoes are also round. Could the Earth actually be a giant tomato?

I understand the point u are attempting to make. The Earth fails on other tomato criteria, e.g. - it doesn't grow on a tomato plant - so its not a tomato.
Now lets see if you can find a failing criteria for why gravity can't be electric.

10 replies so far, and none have been able to criticise the electric gravity theory, they are all down in the bottom 4 ranks of the pyramid of reason. Even if u could get to rank 3, that would be the best reply so far.

There's a mistake noted in post #6. Mistaking "Hilbert's general theory of relativity" for "Einstein's theory of General Relativity" does not hold out much hope that the OP is going to be taken seriously.

btw I notice this thread has been moved to the pseudo science forum. I put it in the Earth sciences forum, where I think its properly belongs.

This means a moderator has moved it, but hasn't given a reason, though I suspect its because he doesn't think gravity has an electro-static cause. I don't suppose it will make a difference me saying but I'll say it anyway : A theory can be evidenced to be wrong, yet still be scientifically valid, so plz put this thread back in the Earth Sciences forum! ( A example of a theory that is not scientific : " Undetectable, non interactive objects exist " - this can never be evidenced nor counter evidenced )

I notice the OP talks about lower gravity during the time of the dinosaurs. This is in line with Earth expansion theory.

electricgravity1
a) could you please provide your sources for lower gravity during the time of the dinosaurs?
b) what are your thoughts on Earth expansion theory and how might this fit with the electro-static model of gravity?

Also, welcome to the forum!

newolder wrote:

electricgravity1 wrote:Mistaking "Hilbert's general theory of relativity" for "Einstein's theory of General Relativity" does not hold out much hope that the OP is going to be taken seriously.

" attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument "

Congrats on getting to rank 6 on the pyramid of reason. You're one off the bottom so you've made a start. But can you get any higher?

I love it when people pushing absurd pseudoscientific nonsense try to lecture us on the "proper" way to debunk their bullshit.

You want someone to address the central point, electricgravity1? Here you go:

"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

I know members were lamenting the decline of the Forum in Feedback a couple weeks ago - but pseudoscience trolls aren't the answer.

LucidFlight wrote:I notice the OP talks about lower gravity during the time of the dinosaurs. This is in line with Earth expansion theory.

electricgravity1
a) could you please provide your sources for lower gravity during the time of the dinosaurs?
b) what are your thoughts on Earth expansion theory and how might this fit with the electro-static model of gravity?

Also, welcome to the forum!

a.) My sources : Dinosaurs were very big, far bigger than any land animal today.
b.) I think they are compatible, I've red a bit of the Earth expansion thread, and also seen Neal Adam's animations. An electric gravity model would allow gravity to vary over time, this is conducive to the EE theory, which requires Earth's gravity to vary over time.

So no evidence, just misguided belief in long-debunked pretty pictures and a lack of understanding or knowledge of the extent of evidence of paleogravity.

Weaver wrote:I love it when people pushing absurd pseudoscientific nonsense try to lecture us on the "proper" way to debunk their bullshit.

You want someone to address the central point, electricgravity1? Here you go:

"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

I know members were lamenting the decline of the Forum in Feedback a couple weeks ago - but pseudoscience trolls aren't the answer.

Your asserting electric gravity theory cannot be tested. You are wrong. Electric gravity theory can be tested by doing a Cavendish experiment off Earth, therefore it is scientific.
Electric gravity theory suggests : big G is dependant on the electric environment, therefore :
If the value of big G found on other celestial bodies is the same as Earth, then this strongly discredits electric gravity theory, effectively falsifying it.

I'm not aware of any Cavendish experiment done well away from Earth's surface.