Electromagnetic vs Gravitational Forces as evidence for the orbital differences between objects at atomic vs universe scale

@jammycakes, I can assure you in the liberal arts or my praxis-focused coursework, no one got good grades for rectally sourced fabrications made up nonsense presented as strong arguments. We were expected to know and understand background of and theories about literature and apply them or argue against them. Same with history, linguistics, English academic research methods, German language and literature courses, history of German, library cataloging, art history, HTML (ancient times, carved on stone tablets), library reference, teaching literacy, childhood psychology, etc. We didn’t get to just make stuff up. The strength of one’s arguments was based in knowledge, understanding and an appropriate application of the course content. Then you had to write it well to communicate your thoughts clearly enough to your prof and classmates.

Don’t let him dupe you. That post is full of misinformation.

This is simply not truth.
Even in the Liberal Arts, one is not granted a good grade based on some flowery nonsense. Demonstration of comprehension of the material and arguments with, for, or against are all dependent on a mastery of what is being studied and it’s application. A prof worth her salt knows fabrication and misapplication, when she sees it, and will not reward it.


From a theoretical physicist: (Moderator note & EDIT: Mathis is not a theoretical physicist or a physicist at all. The following was also taken from Unified fields in disguise by Miles Mathis without citing the source):

Both Newton’s and Coulomb’s famous equations are unified field equations in disguise.

Yes, both Newton and Coulomb discovered unified field equations. That is why their two equations look so much alike. But the two equations unify in different ways. Newton was unaware of the E/M field, as we know it now, so he did not realize that his heuristic equation contained both fields. And Coulomb was working on electrostatics, and likewise did not realize that his equation included gravity. So the E/M field is hidden inside Newton’s equation, and the gravitational field is hidden inside Coulomb’s equation.

Let’s look at Newton’s equation first.

F = GMm/r^2

[H]ow can we get two fields when we only have mass involved? Well, we remember that Newton invented the modern idea of mass with this equation. That is to say, he pretty much invented that variable on his own. It would have been better if Newton had written the equation like this:

F= G(DV)(dv)/r^2

He should have written each mass as a density and a volume. Mass is not a fundamental characteristic, like density or volume is. To know a mass, you have to know both a density and a volume. But to know a volume, you only need to know lengths. Likewise with density. Density, like volume, can be measured only with a yardstick.

Once we have density and volume in Newton’s equation, we can assign density to one field and volume to the other. We let volume define the gravitational field and we let density define the E/M field. Both fields then fall off with the square of the radius, simply because each field is spherical.

The biggest pill to swallow is the necessary implication that gravity is now dependent only on radius. If gravity is a function of volume, and no longer of density, then gravity is not a function of mass. We have separated the variables and given density to the E/M field, so gravity is no longer a function of density. If gravity is a function of volume alone, then with a sphere gravity is a function of radius, and nothing else.

Now we only need to assign density mechanically. I have given it to E/M, but what part of the E/M field does it apply to? Well, it must apply to the emission. Newton’s equation is not telling us the density of the bodies in the field, it is telling us the density of the emitted field. Of course one is a function of the other. If you have a denser moon, it will emit a denser E/M field. But, as a matter of mechanics, the variable D applies to the density of the emitted field. It is the density of photons emitted by the matter creating the unified field.

Finally, what is G, in this analysis? G is the transform between the two fields. It is a sort of scaling constant. As we have seen, one field–gravity–is determined by the radius of a macro-object, like a moon or planet or a marble. The other field is determined by the density of emitted photons. But these two fields are not operating on the same scale. To put both fields into the same equation, we must scale one field to the other. We are using both fields to find a unified force, so we must discover how force is transmitted in each field. In the E/M field, force is transmitted by the direct contact of the photons. That is, the force is felt at that level. It can be measured from any level of size, but it is being transmitted at the level of the photon. But since gravity is now a function of volume alone, it is not a function of photon size or energy. It is a function of matter itself, that is, of the atoms that make up matter. Therefore, G is a scaling constant between atoms and photons. To say it another way, G is taking the volume down to the level of size of the density, so that they may be multiplied together to find a force. Without that scaling constant, the volume would be way too large to combine directly to the density, and we would get the wrong force. By this analysis, we may assume that the photon involved in E/M transmission is about G times the atom, in size.

But where is the gravitational field in Coulomb’s equation? If we study charge, we find that it has the same fundamental dimensions as mass. The statcoulomb has dimensions of (M^1/2)(L^3/2)(T^ -1). This gives the total charge of two particles the cgs dimension M(L^3/T^2) . But mass has the dimensions L^3 /T^2, which makes the total charge M^2. So we can treat Coulomb’s charges just like Newton’s masses.

We write the equation like this:

F = k(DV)(dv)/r^2

Once again, the volume is the gravitational field and the density is the E/M field. The single electron is in the emitted field of the nucleus, and D gives us the density of that field. But this time the expressed field is the E/M field and the hidden field is gravity. So we have to scale the electromagnetic field UP to the unified field we are measuring with our instruments.

If k and G had been the same number, all this would have been seen earlier. It would have then been easy to see that Coulomb’s equation was just the inverse of Newton’s equation. But because the constants were not the same number, the problem was hidden.

In scaling up and scaling down, we don’t simply reverse the scale. In scaling down, we go from atomic size to photon size. In scaling up, we go from atomic size to our own size.

The author is Miles Mathis. I don’t think he is a theoretical physicist.

I can measure mass on a balance without knowing density and volume.

Also, density is measured in mass/volume. How do you determine the mass in order to get density?

This appears to be just the tip of the pseudoscientific iceberg. Is there something specific you would like discussed?

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.