I suppose another test would be to take a trip to Australia and see if they all get repulsed off the planet as well. Since in Australia the "downward" repulsive cosmological force (as described in the quoted section) would combine with the outward repulsive force between the positive charge of the Earth and the Australians.

Gravity
Gravity on earth

The positive charge of earth creates a positive field (Figure 15). An atom or a nuclear located at close proximity to earth experiences this field. This positive field pulls on negative E particles and pushes on positive P particles forming a dipole with a weak positive pole facing the earth and a strong positive pole facing away from the earth. The weak positive pole decreases the repulsive force from the direction of the earth and the strong positive pole increases the repulsive cosmological force from above pushing the atom or nuclear down.

Your linked source includes:

…
In traditional physics W=mg. Since mass is conserved and gravity is a constant, weight should Not change at increasing temperature in vacuum. 
…

I have no idea what you mean by “traditional physics”. When a solid is heated, internal energy increases up to ionisation temperatures when electrons are liberated. An increase in internal energy causes an increase in mass (Recall E = mc2)- e.g. a compressed spring is heavier than a relaxed spring - until ionisation temperatures are reached.

If your “theory” predicts something other then it is not a theory of the world we inhabit.

newolder wrote:If your “theory” predicts something other then it is not a theory of the world we inhabit.

I think this is pretty clearly the case. I've been trying to come up with simpler experiments than heating objects in vaccuum and weighing them to explain this, and failing, apparently.

It was a fun game though, if you want to give it a try.

One of the obvious consequences, for example, is that in the picture I just posted above you can see that the net "gravitational" force in his "theory" is predicted to get smaller the closer you get to the Earth, for a given test "mass".

Thommo wrote:
I'm not sure how you'd deduce that without an equation governing force, charge and distance. Or are we to assume Coulomb's law here?
However, you don't have to put the balloon near the wall for the test. If you're right a statically charged balloon should fall much, much, much faster than a non statically charged balllon. This would be easily testable in your own home.

In my theory charged particles at close proximity to each other interact more strongly than charged particles at a distance.
In my theory a neutral balloon has a positive charge. If the negative charge added to a balloon is insufficient to turn the balloon negative both balloons should fall at the same rate.

Yaniv wrote:

Thommo wrote:
I'm not sure how you'd deduce that without an equation governing force, charge and distance. Or are we to assume Coulomb's law here?
However, you don't have to put the balloon near the wall for the test. If you're right a statically charged balloon should fall much, much, much faster than a non statically charged balllon. This would be easily testable in your own home.

In my theory charged particles at close proximity to each other interact more strongly than charged particles at a distance.
In my theory a neutral balloon has a positive charge. If the negative charge added to a balloon is insufficient to turn the balloon negative both balloons should fall at the same rate.

That's inconsistent with the picture posted in the gravity section, where you clearly show a smaller net positive charge exerting a smaller repulsive force.

newolder wrote:Your linked source includes:

…
In traditional physics W=mg. Since mass is conserved and gravity is a constant, weight should Not change at increasing temperature in vacuum. 
…

I have no idea what you mean by “traditional physics”. When a solid is heated, internal energy increases up to ionisation temperatures when electrons are liberated. An increase in internal energy causes an increase in mass (Recall E = mc2)- e.g. a compressed spring is heavier than a relaxed spring - until ionisation temperatures are reached.

If your “theory” predicts something other then it is not a theory of the world we inhabit.

The term "traditional physics" refers to classical physics which predicts W should Not change at increasing T in vacuum and relativistic physics which predicts W should increase tiny immeasurable bit (i.e. No change) at increasing T in vacuum. I searched the literature and found several papers measuring W reduction at increasing T in air. I have Not seen any paper measuring W does Not change at increasing T as predicted by traditional physics.

If objects weigh less when they get hotter then how come my light bulbs do not rise to the ceiling after I turn them on?

Yaniv wrote:I searched the literature and found several papers measuring W reduction at increasing T in air.

Can you link a couple of examples of those papers?

newolder wrote:If objects weigh less when they get hotter then how come my light bulbs do not rise to the ceiling after I turn them on?

Usually because they are attached to a light fitting. If you unscrew them from the fitting (bare fingers are best for this), they should attempt to rise.

Yaniv wrote:

newolder wrote:Your linked source includes:

…
In traditional physics W=mg. Since mass is conserved and gravity is a constant, weight should Not change at increasing temperature in vacuum. 
…

I have no idea what you mean by “traditional physics”. When a solid is heated, internal energy increases up to ionisation temperatures when electrons are liberated. An increase in internal energy causes an increase in mass (Recall E = mc2)- e.g. a compressed spring is heavier than a relaxed spring - until ionisation temperatures are reached.

If your “theory” predicts something other then it is not a theory of the world we inhabit.

The term "traditional physics" refers to classical physics which predicts W should Not change at increasing T in vacuum and relativistic physics which predicts W should increase tiny immeasurable bit (i.e. No change) at increasing T in vacuum.

Your terminology is confusing. Mixing classical and relativistic physics is a mistake. Relativistic changes are calculable to high accuracy and do not represent "No change". 3 errors in 1 sentence, let's see how the rest works out...

I searched the literature and found several papers measuring W reduction at increasing T in air.

It's usual to reference and quote sources. Were these changes attributed to evaporation, ionisation or something else?

I have Not seen any paper measuring W does Not change at increasing T as predicted by traditional physics.

Your definition of "traditional physics" is errant and capitalising "Not" in mid sentence is unnecessary.

Thommo wrote:

newolder wrote:
One of the obvious consequences, for example, is that in the picture I just posted above you can see that the net "gravitational" force in his "theory" is predicted to get smaller the closer you get to the Earth, for a given test "mass".

No. An object at close proximity to earth is more polar and experiences stronger gravitational force.

I have a feeling that this theory proves why batteries are so heavy.

LucidFlight wrote:

newolder wrote:If objects weigh less when they get hotter then how come my light bulbs do not rise to the ceiling after I turn them on?

Usually because they are attached to a light fitting. If you unscrew them from the fitting (bare fingers are best for this), they should attempt to rise.

In this case, the light fittings are at the end of short runs of cable and also get hot to the touch of bare fingers (ouch!), so some effect - at least a bend in the cable - should surely occur.

Yaniv wrote:

Thommo wrote:

newolder wrote:
One of the obvious consequences, for example, is that in the picture I just posted above you can see that the net "gravitational" force in his "theory" is predicted to get smaller the closer you get to the Earth, for a given test "mass".

No. An object at close proximity to earth is more polar and experiences stronger gravitational force.

I did not write that, please sort out your quote.

newolder wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:

newolder wrote:If objects weigh less when they get hotter then how come my light bulbs do not rise to the ceiling after I turn them on?

Usually because they are attached to a light fitting. If you unscrew them from the fitting (bare fingers are best for this), they should attempt to rise.

In this case, the light fittings are at the end of short runs of cable and also get hot to the touch of bare fingers (ouch!), so some effect - at least a bend in the cable - should surely occur.

I wonder if it's because they are tied down that they do not rise due to their gravitationally-repelling behaviour. If the same apparatus were set up in a non-surface-bound environment, we might see some results. I recommend a hot air balloon.

LucidFlight wrote:

newolder wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:

newolder wrote:If objects weigh less when they get hotter then how come my light bulbs do not rise to the ceiling after I turn them on?

Usually because they are attached to a light fitting. If you unscrew them from the fitting (bare fingers are best for this), they should attempt to rise.

In this case, the light fittings are at the end of short runs of cable and also get hot to the touch of bare fingers (ouch!), so some effect - at least a bend in the cable - should surely occur.

I wonder if it's because they are tied down that they do not rise due to their gravitationally-repelling behaviour. If the same apparatus were set up in a non-surface-bound environment, we might see some results. I recommend a hot air balloon.

I misspoke/wrote - the short lengths of cable hang down from ceiling roses and should not restrict upward motion to much of a degree. An experiment in a hot air ballon sounds great. We'd need lots of batteries and an inverter to make the required AC for the bulbs though - how heavy is a fully charged battery, again.

Oh, you mean ceiling-dangled lights? Surely the force of electrons rushing down the cable counteracts the gravitational effect... wait... I'll need to read the paper again.

Yaniv wrote:

Thommo wrote:One of the obvious consequences, for example, is that in the picture I just posted above you can see that the net "gravitational" force in his "theory" is predicted to get smaller the closer you get to the Earth, for a given test "mass".

No. An object at close proximity to earth is more polar and experiences stronger gravitational force.

Can I see your working please?

ETA: And can you explain why if the net push of positive charges from the Earth on one side and the Cosmos is on the other is down towards the Earth the polarisation occurs with the greater positive charge being pooled towards the bigger force that is pushing it away? This appears to be directly opposite to how polarisation works.

newolder wrote:Mixing classical and relativistic physics is a mistake. Relativistic changes are calculable to high accuracy and do not represent "No change". 3 errors in 1 sentence, let's see how the rest works out...

I searched the literature and found several papers measuring W reduction at increasing T in air.

It's usual to reference and quote sources. Were these changes attributed to evaporation, ionisation or something else?

I have Not seen any paper measuring W does Not change at increasing T as predicted by traditional physics.

Your definition of "traditional physics" is errant and capitalising "Not" in mid sentence is unnecessary.

M Glaser metrologia 1990 published a few papers measuring W reduction at increasing T in air and claims heat convection is responsible for reduction in W.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... /2/008/pdf
The two links below reduced heat convection by insulation and still observed reduction in W at increasing T.
http://www.enginsci.cn/ch/reader/create ... id=chinaes
http://intellectualarchive.com/getfile. ... Weight.pdf
Weighing heated metals in vacuum should eliminate heat convection all together and conclude if W changes at increasing T. #ResultsRequired

Yaniv, The proton bunches in the LHC are at temperatures around 1 billion Kelvin degrees. No attempt is made to counteract the forces described by your wibble, but relativistic effects explain the required increases in mass/energy of the beams, so how is it that those protons do not rise to the top of the vacuum tube?