TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

This is how I believe gravity could work. If anyone can find any flaws that I can't please tell me as this is a developing theory.

An Atom, the primary building block. This tiny structure of Protons, Neutrons and electrons has 2 types of charges that push like charges away and bring opposite charges closer. If there's 30 protons (Zn) there will most likely be 30 electrons. This is in order to have an equal charge, where 30 protons will have a 30e charge, 30 electrons will produce a 30e- charge and because these atoms have charges they are able to attract other atoms within close proximity and start forming conglomerations with an even greater combined charge.

So what if a planet has such a dense concenraion of protons and electrons at it's extremely compressed core that each the negative and positive charges effect the atoms witin our bodies indescriminately, attempting to pull not us, but the building blocks that create us, into the depths of the earth.

This made me think about why we dont just fall through the ground to the core.. and then the painfully obvious answer came to me.. "We would, if we could." but we can't namely because there are other materials held beneath us which prevent us from doing so.. almost like electron shielding preventing valence electrons from dropping to the nucleus, but instead of electrons stopping us from dropping it is dirt, rock, sand, metal and other materials beneath us which stop us from plummeting into the centre.

This is what I think gravity could be..

Indescriminate electromagnetic force...

the way planets, suns, and black holes seem to operate in my mind reinforce my idea.

Share:

Closing Statement from Jared Stevens

Thank you to all those who contributed and with what people have put forth, some constructive and others just.. Not so much. But with all that has been put forth I decided that I was inexplicably.....

WRONG..

the biggest flaws pointed out were that gravity is a separate force from electomagnetism and has been proven to be so.
Also.
The thing about the neutron clouds. Thank you to Jimmy Strobl I'm rating you as the most helpful in this conversation.

Thanks again everyone who contributed.

  • thumb
    May 27 2013: Your approach seems to hit at a clue, but it suffers from one flaw. Gravity is not an electric force.

    There is no charge associated with it, and is a fundamental force.

    This nature is what has baffled science to this day. The only things we know about gravity is that the presence of mass is correlated with higher gravitational forces. And the force is so tiny that it can barely hold onto a thin layer of atmosphere even for mass the size of the earth. (Take a look at the moon, even though it is so large, it has no atmosphere.)

    Electronic force which you referred to on your example is a short distance high intensity force similar to magnetism. This is not to be confused with gravity despite its similarities.

    The best theory we have as of now is one Einstein gave us of the bending of the space-time continuum wherever there was mass.
    • May 29 2013: Interesting.. the only way I could justify the lack of a charge is if a positive and negative charge are balancing and providing a neutral electrical charge but that seems a little too far-fetched to me.. Thank you by the way I've lightly brushed on Einsteins theories but I often find them difficult to completely grasp but I will look into them further as I get a bit smarter.
  • thumb
    Jun 9 2013: I don't even know where to begin. But I'm sorry to say that your conclusion is (very) wrong.

    I'll eliminate the electric charge theory by the example of neutron stars. Which are stars, held together by gravity created only of neutrons (as I'm sure you're aware have no electric charge). With your thesis this could not be explained and it therefore falls.

    But there are so many other reasons why this isn't so.

    First you need to get a basic understanding of the four fundamental forces. Strong Interaction, Weak Interaction, Electromagnetism and finally Gravitation.

    I noticed some comments here are mixing the forces up, saying that gravity is a part of the electromagnetic spectra and things like that. That is also wrong.

    I'll leave Youtube videos for each force produced by Scishow.
    Strong Interaction (two parts) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv3EMq2Dgq8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNDOSMqGLlg
    Weak Interaction - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnL_nwmCLpY
    Electromagnetism - Electrostatic Force https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMnsZuEE_m8
    Electromagnetism - Magnetic Force https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy6kba3A8vY
    Gravitation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhG_ArxmwRM

    Watch those and get back to me and see if you still believe your thesis is sound.
  • May 28 2013: A so-called "black hole" is neither black, nor a hole. It is a sphere. What element or elements is that body made of. Obviously it is not just one huge atom because there are varying sizes of these phenomenon in the universe, thus implying that whatever they are made from is a kind of atom that hasproperties so powerful we can't bring it into a lab and study it. But since there are super massive BH's (I refuse hence for to call them holes) there are differing size communities of the atoms that make up a BH. Why can't we not assume there to be some of this material at the core of all spherical celestial bodies. Nothing is round for no reason. And "gravity" have never been a sufficient enough reason for me. Galaxies spin in a 2-D orbit around a SMBH, planetary systems orbit stars on a 2-D plane. Just because something doesn't fit on our periodic table of elements which can exist without knocking the planet off it's axis, doesn't mean there isn't something we don't yet understand that is so powerful it makes the universe possible rather than being a mass expanse of free flying soot. You're on a good track to wonder about this. But I don't think the planet makes it's gravitational properties, something which has that force causes planets, stars and moons to configure around them. --It's chicken or egg and there is no concluding that anything just happens, something causes it to happen (and it ain't god). What is the physical property of the stuff that makes up the sphere we primitive dolts have dubbed a "black hole? Can't get near one to find out lest you become equally distributed grit on it's surface. Nay?
    • May 29 2013: Hmmm.. I like this explanation.. Okay so let me pose a question to you. well two actually..

      At the core of our planet do you think we will find new elements forming that are higher in the periodic table than what we currently have due to the immense pressure of a planet surrounding it?
      and
      How much pressure could we imagine not to be on the surface of a 'BH' :) but at it's core?
  • thumb
    May 27 2013: Do also pose your question on a science forum. We have some physical scientists who participate here as well as people interested in science, but it is hard to anticipate during any week who of our community will find the time to engage in conversations.

    Good physical science websites if you want perspectives from trained scientists include the American Physical Society and NASA.
    • May 29 2013: Thanks I'll look into those sights.
  • Jun 4 2013: The problem is that mass attracts mass observably different than positive charge is attracted by negative charge (it's argueably which attracts which).

    The gravitational pull between objects "dies off" a lot slower than the electro-magnetic pull.
    • Jun 8 2013: You mean the whole gravity is inverse 2 and electromagnetism is inverse 4 or something like that?
      • Jun 8 2013: That amongst other things yes.

        One of the most 'mindbogling' differences is that charge is repelled by other charge, but mass is always attracted to other mass.
        • thumb
          Jun 9 2013: It really shouldn't be that mind boggling as charge is the result of the strong and weak interactions while the attraction of mass to mass comes from gravity. Completely different fundamental forces in the universe, there's no reason why they would act alike.
  • Jun 4 2013: GRAVITY IS WITHOUT A DOUBT...SIMPLY PUT....AN ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE. UNLIKE ELECTRICITY, WHICH FLOWS ONLY THRU SOME ELEMENTS ( MOST METALS, WATER ETC. BUT NOT THRU GLASS, PLASTIC, WOOD). AND MAGNETISM ALONE ATTRACTS OR REPELS ONLY SOME ELEMENTS ( FERRIS TYPE MATERIALS BUT NOT PLASTIC, WOOD, PAPER)

    GRAVITY ATTRACTS EVEYTHING. WHY? BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAS PROTONS/ELECTRONS I.E A MAGNETIC FORCE.. FOR EXAMPLE HYDROGEN GAS AND A TWO TON STEEL BALL IS MADE UP OF ATOMS. THE HYDROGEN ATOM IS LIGHTER...WHY? BECAUSE IT HAS LESS ELECTRON/PROTONS, AND THEREFORE GRAVITY HAS LESS TO PULL...SO HYDROGEN WILL DEFY GRAVITY ONLY SO FAR, BUT WILL NOT GET AWAY FROM GRAVITY AND FLY OUT INTO OUTER SPACE. THE TWO TON STEEL BALL HAS SO MANY ATOMS, AND SO MUCH DENSITY, THAT GRAVITY HAS MORE OF APULL ON IT. THE MORE YOU WEIGH, THE MORE GRAVITY AFFECTS YOU.

    THE DYNAMO IN THE CENTER OF THE EARTH IS PULLING ALL ELECTROMAGNETIC PARTICLES, WHICH INCLUDES EVERYTHING...GASES, SOLIDS, LIQUIDS........IF THE EARTH HAD A 100 MILE WIDE HOLE STRAIGHT THRU THE CENTER...AND IF SOMETHING FELL IN THE HOLE, IT WOULD FALL, AND SPEED PAST THE CENTER, SLOW DOWN AND REVERSE THE FALL, UNTIL IT EQUALIZED AND STOPPED IN THE CENTER.

    OUR MAGNETICE FIELD, PRODUCED BY THE DYNAMO, PROTECTS US FROM THE SOLAR WIND, AND ALSO PROVIDES GRAVITY FOR EVERY ATOM. MY ONLY QUESTION AT THIS POINT IS.....IS THE DYNAMO SPINNING IN THE CENTER OF THE EARTH, AS WE HAVE BEEN TOLD TO BELIEVE...OR IS IT STATIONARY/STABLE.....AND THE EARTH IS SPINNING (OF COURSE) WHICH IS WHAT GENERATES THE MAGNETIC FIELD. THE FRICTION OF EARTH SPINING AROUND A STABLE IRON CORE WOULD GENERATE TREMENDOUS HEAT, PRODUCING THE LIQUID MAGMA, WHICH SURROUNDS THE SOLID IRON CORE.

    I HAVE NEVER HEARD ANYONE PUT THIS NEW IDEA OUT.....BUT I'M INCLINED TO BELIEVE THAT I'M RIGHT ON THIS ONE. WE AS HUMANS KNOW VERY LITTLE, BUT ARE LEARNING NEW THINGS AT A VERY FAST RATE..........I ENCOURAGE ALL TO COMMENT ON MY VIEWS.....THNX FOR READING.
    • Jun 8 2013: Iron wouldn't be stable at those temperatures, almost nothing would be. the core of the earth is most likely the most radioactive place on this planet or well.. in this planet... and there's one other thing that bothers me with your idea and that is that you say the more you weigh the more gravity affects you and this is not true, a feather falls as fast as a bowling ball in a vacuum.
      Although I'd believe it if the more mass you have the more mass you have available to be affected by gravity but since the effect would increase relative to how much mass you gain the actual effective pull gravity has on you as a whole remains unchanged...
      • Jun 10 2013: ALL THE LEADING SCIENTISTS SAY THAT THE EARTH HAS A SOLID IRON CORE.....IS IT TRUE? I DON'T KNOW......BUT I'M GOING WITH THE ONES WHO SHOULD KNOW.......THERE WAS TIME WHEN EVERYBODY SAID THE EARTH WAS FLAT...............................
        furthermore.....if you haven't noticed......we don't live in a vacuum. put 100# on a scale and gravity tells you have 100#. put 1000# on a scale and you have 1000# it was demonstrated on the moon what happens in a vacuum. everybody agrees that gravity is a force.........my question is WHAT IS THAT FORCE? EVERYTHING IS AFFECTED BY GRAVITY. EVERYTHING HAS WEIGHT, AND EVERTHING HAS A MAGNETIC FIELD. NO ONE ON THIS PLANET HAS DISCOVERED EXACTLY WHAT GRAVITY IS........I AM ONLY SUBMITTING MY THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER. AFTER CAREFUL THINKING ON WHAT I HAVE READ, STUDIED, AND THOUGHT ABOUT.......I MERELY OFFERED MY VIEWPOINT. THE MASS OF ONE OBJECT DOES NOT AFFECT THE MASS OF ANOTHER OBJECT, AS WE ARE ROUTINELY TOLD. GRAVITY HAS A STRAIGHT DOWNWARD PULL, TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE EARTH. HERE'S THE QUESTION.............what is it about EVERYTHING that is affected by gravity? what do all things have in common? you think about that, cause those are the actual facts you can't disagree with.
        • thumb
          Jun 10 2013: Yes Victor you are right about that. (could you please stop writing in CAPS LOCK, it's in violation of the terms of use and very tiresome to read)

          We have a stable iron core because of the pressure of earth is upon it, that is also the reason for the temperature.

          Did you read my other comment and watch the videos, I think the would do you (both) great.

          Get back to me after that.
    • thumb
      Jun 9 2013: Victor,

      That's some pseudoscience you have there. did you think it up yourself or read it somewhere?

      Please read my comment http://www.ted.com/conversations/18630/this_is_how_i_believe_gravity.html?c=687477
      • Jun 10 2013: jimmy boy...i thought it up all by myself........and you can't prove it or disprove it.......its just an idea.
        did I say I was GOD and thats how it happened?............once people like you thought the earth was flat. ALL the leading scientists say the earth has an iron core and its spinning. Is it? can you PROVE IT? I offered another idea. You need to stay outa the gay bars.....your outa your league.
        • thumb
          Jun 10 2013: Oh my. Would you like to have a real good serious scientific discussion? All the leading scientists do say that the core is iron and spinning and I fully agree, I am a man of science. Here's the reason that I said that it was pseudoscience: (Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.)

          And I'm going by what all the leading scientists say, as I always do.

          1.Gravity is NOT an electromagnetic force, no matter how complexly you put it. Einstein died trying to prove that this was the case, and he tried to prove it for a long time and so have many after him.

          2.Everything does not have protons/electrons, have you ever heard of neutrons for example, or neutron stars, as shown in my example to Jared.

          3.By point 2 your third paragraph is wrong.

          4. By points 2 and 3 paragraph 4 is wrong. (and which one is spinning depends only on the perspective, if you were to imagine standing on the iron core, you'd perceive the earth was spinning and you standing still.)

          5. You're encouragement is nice, didn't seem very encouraging when I answered though...

          (And you have to stop using CAPS LOCK AND TXT speak or the admins will delete your comments.)

          http://www.ted.com/pages/conversations_terms

          "By inviting you to participate in TEDTalk comments and TED Conversations, we are seeking to build a mature online community centered around ideas that matter. Please be aware, when participating, that we will remove:
          content promoting pseudo-science, conspiracy theories, zealotry, proselytizing, self-promotion, product-hawking, and new-age fluff
          content written in txtspeak, all-caps, or otherwise lazy grammar
          content posted by members using joke names or non-names
          disrespectful, distasteful, unconstructive, or illegal content"
  • May 29 2013: There may be elements formed but what I implied was that there is matter of a nature that is at the core of all rounded celestial bodies which has made them into the sphere that they are. Not the other way around. Planets, moons, stars, don't just congeal and configure. There may well be some sort of matter we don't understand that that which makes up the BH sphere. The language we have used to date may have prejudiced us wrongly. We use terms like "inside a black hole" which deems it a hole. When it is a sphere. So whatever goes "into it" assumedly gets distributed around the exterior of the sphere of crushed into elements, but they don't go inside a hole. Yes, the BH has a center because the nature of the material is to configure into a sphere. But there spheres may be supermassive or the size of BBs. One BB could be enough to create a planet around it--attracting and distributing so much matter it over takes the power to crush everything and thus a surface builds into a bir round sphere. Now some planets are just gas. What makes a gas configure as a sphere and stay in an orbital relationship with a star for billions of cycles? Gravity? Seems to weak an answer to me.
  • thumb
    May 28 2013: Actually it is the very same atoms that are stopping from falling into the earths core; not rock, dirt, sand, or metal.

    Also I am not sure how what you wrote translates into what gravity could be? Most likely gravity is dark matter and dark matter is gravity
    • May 29 2013: Ah sorry, I should've been clearer but Rock dirt sand and metal are just denser conglomerates of atoms right? so yes; it is the very same atoms that stop us falling, but saying that No; it isn't rock sand dirt or metal isn't right in my opinion.

      The way it think it explains gravity is, If atoms pull together when in close enough vicinity, and we're made of atoms. Then it stand to reason that when we are in vicinity of another mass we will pull together since we are atoms.

      Also could you post a link to the dark matter theory you're referring to? would very much like to read =D
  • thumb
    May 27 2013: I have to say though, I fear our misunderstanding with Gravity, may also hint at misunderstandings towards a few other things as well.

    We have done so much with what we do know, but have to admit, some of it wasn't due to knowing, it was completely accidental, like most other " ah hah " moments, the catalyst for such is exactly that, unpredictability merging with randomization to create the perfect " electrical " storm.

    Gravity has and will always seem to be an Electromagnetic counterpart somehow to me without anything other than my faith that we've missed something and this actually is something we thought it not to be. Call it my gut feeling, or my ignorance, I've gotta remain stubborn about it, until I smack my head next that is.
    • May 29 2013: Hahahah Very true we have definitely missed some key concepts as to how the universe works but I truly believe that in time we'll figure them out. I mean we started in the wrong place and started assuming.. now that we're getting to a smaller and smaller level coming to the very start of physical creation I believe we will one day right every wrong or missing piece of evidence in our beliefs.