Gravitational acceleration and sub-atomic electric charge

[rwh2100]

TL;DR

Is gravity (fundamentally) a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge?

Wak a ball with a bat and the ball accelerates. Now under gravity, hold the ball out horizontally, let go and the ball accelerates ... without a wak. Given that gravity arises from curved space-time, I suggest further that the acceleration of the ball arises when sub-atomic particles (in the ball) react to the gravitational space-time gradient ... with the electric force between sub-atomic particles being dependent on particle separations ... and particle separations being affected by a space-time gradient. Hence, is gravity (fundamentally) a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge?

 

[hmmm27]

No.

You might notice that *everything* responds to gravity. Including, things with no intrinsic charge.

 

[Dale]

Summary: Is gravity (fundamentally) a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge?

No. Such a force cannot be always attractive, like gravity.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Can I vote "no" too?

Furthermore, if you want to posit an alternative theory of gravity, a) it needs to be quantitatively correct, and b) needs to be published before we can discuss it on PF.

 

[rwh2100]

No. Such a force cannot be always attractive, like gravity.

not the absolute value ... just consider the space-time *gradient* across an object with mass ... gravity squeezes the bottom of a tennis ball more than the top of a tennis ball (given the Earth beneath) ... and the amount of squeeze is graded in between

 

[berkeman]

(Thread title prefix changed A-->B)

 

[rwh2100]

Can I vote "no" too?

Furthermore, if you want to posit an alternative theory of gravity, a) it needs to be quantitatively correct, and b) needs to be published before we can discuss it on PF.

I invite discussion ... not votes.

 

[rwh2100]

No.

You might notice that *everything* responds to gravity.

... tell me more, thanks

 

[Dale]

not the absolute value ... just consider the space-time *gradient* across an object with mass ... gravity squeezes the bottom of a tennis ball more than the top of a tennis ball (given the Earth beneath) ... and the amount of squeeze is graded in between

This is not acceptable. If you want to make a broad claim that gravity is “(fundamentally) a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge” then it must broadly reproduce all gravitational phenomena, not just some specially selected fractions of features.

Gravity is not fundamentally arising from charge. Such a claim cannot reproduce even ordinary gravitational observations, like planetary orbits. There is simply no way to massage the claim into something that fits even the most basic observations of gravity

 

[rwh2100]

Can I vote "no" too?

Furthermore, if you want to posit an alternative theory of gravity, a) it needs to be quantitatively correct, and b) needs to be published before we can discuss it on PF.

I invite discussion ... not votes. I have posted to open a discussion ... hence a) and b) do not apply

 

[Dale]

I invite discussion ... not votes. I have posted to open a discussion ... hence a) and b) do not apply

He is correct. b) always applies on PF. All posts on PF are required to be consistent with the professional scientific literature

 

[rwh2100]

This is not acceptable. If you want to make a broad claim that gravity is “(fundamentally) a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge” then it must broadly reproduce all gravitational phenomena, not just some specially selected fractions of features.

Gravity is not fundamentally arising from charge. Such a claim cannot reproduce even ordinary gravitational observations, like planetary orbits. There is simply no way to massage the claim into something that fits even the most basic observations of gravity

I have suggested that gravity is “(fundamentally) a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge” ... and invite your consideration of the physics presented

 

[Dale]

I have suggested that gravity is “(fundamentally) a force arising from sub-atomic electric charge” ... and invite your consideration of the physics presented

It has been considered and rejected because it doesn’t work. It cannot even explain the solar system because gravity is always attractive.

As there is nothing else to say, this thread is closed.