I was just reading this blog- No, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex”_, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex” , when I thought of a plausible explanation for gravity.

Is gravity the heliocentric force asserted on a nucleus by it’s captured electrons?

And what is the maths to heliocentrics?

Postpocelipse said:

I was just reading this blog- No, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex”_, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex” , when I thought of a plausible explanation for gravity.

Is gravity the heliocentric force asserted on a nucleus by it’s captured electrons?

I can state categorically that the answer to the above will be no.

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

I was just reading this blog- No, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex”_, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex” , when I thought of a plausible explanation for gravity.

Is gravity the heliocentric force asserted on a nucleus by it’s captured electrons?

I can state categorically that the answer to the above will be no.

I’m not convinced……..

sibeen said:

I can state categorically that the answer to the above will be no.

What if I wave my hands more vigorously?

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

I was just reading this blog- No, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex”_, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex” , when I thought of a plausible explanation for gravity.

Is gravity the heliocentric force asserted on a nucleus by it’s captured electrons?

I can state categorically that the answer to the above will be no.

I don’t know what it means, but since you can have gravity without electrons I will have to agree with sibeen.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

I was just reading this blog- No, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex”_, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex” , when I thought of a plausible explanation for gravity.

Is gravity the heliocentric force asserted on a nucleus by it’s captured electrons?

I can state categorically that the answer to the above will be no.

I don’t know what it means, but since you can have gravity without electrons I will have to agree with sibeen.

Plasma is plasma. Gravity matters when it coalesces matter. Heliocentric force is the force that makes a top wobble. Seems perfectly plausible to me with understanding of the basic characteristics of electrons, protons and neutrons that heliocentric force is responsible for gravitation.

Postpocelipse said:

Heliocentric force is the force that makes a top wobble.

Both the answer to everything and the meaning of the greek words suggest that it means a force directed towards the centre of the Sun, rather than the force that makes a top wobble.

Working link:
Not a vortex

Is this the New Physics again?

buffy said:

Is this the New Physics again?

That rings a bell.

Worldlines

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

I can state categorically that the answer to the above will be no.

What if I wave my hands more vigorously?

can you try it like you are flapping wings? i have found this this will help in any debate

wookiemeister said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

I can state categorically that the answer to the above will be no.

What if I wave my hands more vigorously?

can you try it like you are flapping wings? i have found this this will help in any debate

I found that flapping wings helped when listening to Tony Abbott

Luckily I don’t have to do that any more.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

Heliocentric force is the force that makes a top wobble.

Both the answer to everything and the meaning of the greek words suggest that it means a force directed towards the centre of the Sun, rather than the force that makes a top wobble.

You would be right there. He cites precession as the force that makes a top wobble. Fair enough. I would have to change the title to precessional force and suggest that gravity is this. I had read past the particular reference and replaced the relevant reference with that of the main reference of the blog.

So, is gravitation a force of precession exerted between a particles nucleus and that of it’s electrons?

Postpocelipse said:

So, is gravitation a force of precession exerted between a particles nucleus and that of it’s electrons?

Nope.

Gravitation can be viewed as a force between all massive objects in the universe, though probably most careful modern writers would prefer to describe as the effect that concentrations of mass-energy have on the shape of space-time.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

So, is gravitation a force of precession exerted between a particles nucleus and that of it’s electrons?

Nope.

Gravitation can be viewed as a force between all massive objects in the universe, though probably most careful modern writers would prefer to describe as the effect that concentrations of mass-energy have on the shape of space-time.

Unfortunately dv your answer doesn’t convince me as yet. It does not rule it out in any manner.

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

So, is gravitation a force of precession exerted between a particles nucleus and that of it’s electrons?

Nope.

Gravitation can be viewed as a force between all massive objects in the universe, though probably most careful modern writers would prefer to describe as the effect that concentrations of mass-energy have on the shape of space-time.

Unfortunately dv your answer doesn’t convince me as yet. It does not rule it out in any manner.

I’m with postpoc on this one.

Saying that gravity is the result of an interaction between mass (whatever that is) and space-time (whatever that is) does not preclude consideration of what the mechanism(s) of that interaction might be.

Postpocelipse said:

And what is the maths to heliocentrics?

The word heliocentric is an adjective… it’s used to describe a theory that involves the sun at the centre of (primarily) our solar system. It has no ‘maths’ per se…

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

Nope.

Gravitation can be viewed as a force between all massive objects in the universe, though probably most careful modern writers would prefer to describe as the effect that concentrations of mass-energy have on the shape of space-time.

Unfortunately dv your answer doesn’t convince me as yet. It does not rule it out in any manner.

I’m with postpoc on this one.

Saying that gravity is the result of an interaction between mass (whatever that is) and space-time (whatever that is) does not preclude consideration of what the mechanism(s) of that interaction might be.

Thank you Rev. I believe I have begun to comprehend the measurement scenario within the hypothesis which involves comparison of particles under plasma condition and those of accreted matter.