Gravity and atomic fields - due to high relative motion?

AI Thread Summary
Gravity is primarily understood as the alignment of atomic electrical fields influenced by the high velocity motion of atoms in the universe. As atomic mass increases, the resonant frequency changes, necessitating different orbital velocities for various masses. This motion creates magnetic fields that affect the interactions between particles, such as the repulsion preventing electrons and protons from fusing. The energy from universal motion stabilizes atomic structures, suggesting that gravity has an electrical nature. Overall, the discussion highlights the complex interplay between atomic behavior and the effects of space-time on gravitational fields.
DavidSF
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Gravity or gravitational fields are not yet understood fully. All mass bodies including the atom itself has what is called a gravitational field.

Gravity is principly the partial alignment of the atomic electrical fields due to a common high velocity motion of the atoms through the universe, as the quantity of atomic mass increases the overall atomic group frequency resonant frequency changes, for this reason different orbital velocities are required for different masses.

All atomic matter is composed of electrical particles, which when traveling together through the universe they develop a magnetic field due to common current flow, like particles magnetically attract and unlike particles develop a magnetic repulsion. The magnetic values involved are directly related to our total universal velocity.

This developed magnetic repulsion is also the reason why the electron and proton do not readily fuse together (combine) and the reason that electrons can only orbit at fixed magnet harmonic wavelengths proportional to the fundamental wavelength.

An electron in orbit around the positive nucleus is repelled to a radius, which is controlled by the velocity of the atom through the universe, both the nucleus and the electron absorb energy from the space-time velocity component to maintain their orbiting magnetic fields.

As the velocity through the universe changes so does the atomic particle magnetic fields and orbiting radial wavelengths change.

It is the universal motion which provides the energy which stabilizes the atomic particle structure.

In this way an atom constantly reacts to its environment and the environment is influenced by the atom. Space time can change the velocity of atoms by exchanging electrical energy with the atoms. From this we deduce that space-time is electrically active and that gravity is electrical in nature.

I read somewhere that an electron orbits the proton in the ground state at about 240,000 - 250,000 m/s but it is interesting that our galactic velocity is greater than 600,000 m/sec. I'm sure that the physicist generally ignores the effect of this 600,000 m/s velocity when descibing the atomic structure..

There is nowhere in the universe where you are not influenced by space-time conditions and anyone in orbit is simply magnetically balanced so to speak.

David
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DavidSF said:
Gravity is principly the partial alignment of the atomic electrical fields due to a common high velocity motion of the atoms through the universe, as the quantity of atomic mass increases the overall atomic group frequency resonant frequency changes, for this reason different orbital velocities are required for different masses.
This is not the forum for such speculation. This quite clearly is not true, i.e. way outside mainstream physics/theory.

I read somewhere that an electron orbits the proton in the ground state at about 240,000 - 250,000 m/s
For "velocity" to have a meaning one has to be able to give the position of a partilce as a fuction of time. This cannot be done for an electron in an atom.

Pete
 
DavidSF said:
Gravity is principly the partial alignment of the atomic electrical fields due to a common high velocity motion of the atoms through the universe,

So neutrons do not have a gravitational effect? Therefore neutron stars(pulsars) do not have a gravitational field?

Maybe you were speaking for yourself when you said
DavidSF said:
Gravity or gravitational fields are not yet understood fully
.
 
Gravity and atomic fields

Moving these last three posts to start a new thread in Theory Development.
 
I believe the neutron contains both a proton and electron, only you excluded the neutron from the equation, I did not.

An osterich buries his head in the sand and he believes he cannot be seen.

A Physicist sometimes puts the atom in a box and assumes it does not move or interact with its environment.

If I am wrong, then you must have the correct answer to correct me, so that you can pull my head out of the sand so to speak.

Keplers second law states that:
The planets move such that the line between the Sun and the Planet sweeps out the same area in the same area in the same time no matter where in the orbit.

For me, the Earth and sun, which are both traveling with the galaxy at a speed of 600,000 metres per second, sweep out a rectangular area of 600,000 x 150,000,000,000 metres per second, this area is equivalent to the speed of light (c) squared exactly. Why ...

E = mc^2 ... Why?

'Why' is the big question is it not..

David
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top