Gravity is an effective atomic wind that blows towards the center of a large mass. The settling of protons and neutrons. Through a random walk the larger masses will tend towards the center of mass. The electrons will escape the high density quickly and push outwards with a positive divergence. The return of the electron to the higher density will require some degree of settling in a process that is like cooling or like voltage reduction. Both processes require that heat be shed.

Gravity may be modeled scholastically.Important the realize is that the electrons seem to have positive divergence compared with the negative divergence of the proton - neutron combination.

Relating divergences to the electrical and magnetic topics of flux will be a topic of a subsequent post.

Groups of Electrical or Chemical Movements Relating to Gravity

Phase, group or drift velocity are interesting concepts. The idea of a drift velocity is the sum total of all the particle movements will add up to a speed that can be very different than the instantaneous speed of the individual particles. The drift velocity has been calculated to be orders of magnitude slower than the instantaneous velocities of the particles. The term 'drift velocity' comes from electrical engineering where the individual electrons may be travelling at 1% * c (where c is the speed of light) yet the sum total of all of the electrons moves far slower.

The reason for the smaller value of drift velocity is that the electrons will slam into the lattice often enough and end up stopping or traveling against the direction of electron drift. The electrons are re-accelerated by an electric field before slamming into the lattice once more at a momentous speed.

The question I'd ask now is: if we take any point in a mass within a sphere and looked at two points close to each other. One point is closer to the centre of the spherical mass and one point is further from the centre. The point closer to the centre will have more interactions and the point further from the centre will have less interactions. Can we relate this to the idea of statistical total velocity or drift velocity?

Points further from the centre of a sphere are more likely to have a higher combined velocity than those closer to the core of a sphere. We could introduce a pendulum analogy here between the closer point and the further point from the core if they were attached by a tether. One might imagine two ends of a pocket-watch.

The further end of the pocket-watch oscillate more quickly than the centre-most end of the pocket watch which have a carillon of interactions to slow down its relative movement. The relative speed of the further out particles vs. those particles further in will bind the particles towards the centre of the sphere together. This phenomenon may not be observable on a particle by particle basis and is complicated by the relative differences between electrons, neutrons and protons. (The differences are notably mass and velocity).

Gravity could be the result of this combined difference in electrostatic and electro-dynamic group velocities at various points in a sphere. Focus on the fact that the centre of a sphere has to relate electro-statistically with all of the points on the outside of the sphere.

The statistics related to electrons' movement are fascinating. The root mean squared speed of an electron may be one one hundredth the speed of light at times. This is faster movement than the average human can comprehend. The particles are so fundamental to our knowledge of electro-magnetism and they must flow through materials like a fluid if they're moving that fast. Do they rotate or spin in an orbital very tight orbital?

The electron is described as a point charge but no doubt its wave properties would also allow for refraction. Electrons must swap orbitals but how often are orbitals swapped? Where does our body of knowledge concerning the electromagnetic properties of fundamental chemistry begin and end?

Can we use the exponential distribution to model the frequency with which electrons change orbitals and the speed with which an electron, in a given orbital, switches nuclei? Knowing what distribution the change in nuclei takes would give us insight into the mean length of time an individual electron stays with one nucleus. I'd wager that the answer is a very brief period of time.

Electromagnetism at the atomic level has been hard for electrical engineers to describe. Uncertainty principles have probably kept scientists from exploring electromagnetism at the ionic level. Still devices are needed, in space, to ground to plasma and then we need to have a firm understanding of what the voltage of an ion or electron temperature is.

If refraction between wave particles keep electrons moving towards the centre of density then how long does it take for an electron to turn pi radians?

Light Particle Refraction

What are the frequency spectra of particles with mass? Do they vary or does a neutron always have the same spectrum? If a photon or an electron interacts with the energy dense nucleus of an atom then surely the innermost portion of the wave will slow causing refraction towards the dense nucleus.

The idea of a magnetic field is an interesting one. Electrons take a certain path at a fraction of the speed of light the magnetic field may just be a good way of tracking ionic change properties in air and in a more dense medium.

When an electomagnetic wave travels past a more dense medium there is a propensity for more Bragg type effects. Is there more noise created at other Fourier components? The main wave slows and continues at the same frequency. Does the wave lose energy and give the energy up to a different wavelength?

Statistical push from above and pull from below.

Statistical push of electrons tending to escape overwhelmed by the geometry of imbalanced charge and the push of returning electrons.

That is to say an object at the surface of the earth will tend to get pulled into the earth because there will be a tendency for a slight imbalance between electrons and protons at the center of the Earth. This imbalance between the number of electrons and protons that fit in the orbitals that would ideally be explained by a chemistry teacher is responsible for a push-pull whose net effect is gravity. The Earth could actually be any sphere of any size. There will be a deficit of electrons at the center of the sphere and a surplus of electrons outside the center of the sphere. In between the center and the periphery we experience gravity.

The electrons at the top of the sphere will have a tendency to launch themselves out into space. After being launched the electron will be attracted by the charge imbalance and will want to return back to earth.

Statistically the object on the surface of the Earth will experience a weak force at the top due to electron return. The bottom of the object will have a net negative charge and be attracted to the imbalance between the electrons tending outwards and the protons which stand still.

Introduction

People think all kinds of funny things. Science has been littered with examples of bad theories that have gone nowhere. I'll give full props to the theories that were well developed yet were proven false through replicated formal experiment. The process and formalism of scientific thought is of param-ount importance and underpins what society expects from practitioners of physics, chemistry and science in general.

The statistics behind formal scientific thought and our understanding of what is true in our natural world comes from an adherence to a rigid set of counting. Counting successes and failures and determining truth or hypothesis verification to a confidence level of 95 or 99 percent. Failure to determine the exact nature of a hypothesis verification or a truth leads to muddy conclusions, half-baked science, hacked products and engineered systems that fail. Failed systems undermine the public's trust of engineers and science.

Using this forum I'd like to explore for myself what makes good science. Society is being peppered with examples of experiments that reference atomic tornadoes or molecular resonance. Are underdeveloped ideas being pushed into the limelight too quickly or do we need loose confidence levels that can be put together in strings of replicated experiments that yield high confidence 4.5 sigma output? Duane's reliability growth is an example of how strings of serial and replicated experiment can achieve a high reliability grows curve and an excellent output.

Magnets may or may not make use of electrostatic interactions to clear ions out of their path to create a vacuum for magnetic attraction. We know the phenomena of ion path vs. magnetic field is highly orthogonal to electrostatic forces but does this result of Maxwell's famous set of equations always hold true or are there deeper hypotheses to consider. Secondly, how might these be verified beyond a 99% degree of confidence?

Gravity is a weak force but if it is just a result of additive statistical electromagnetic attraction are there static attraction hypotheses to consider with respect to gravity? Can't gravity just be a rather simple result of the electron being radically lighter than the proton and the neutron. The electrons will fly off towards the edge of the sphere or planet and then arc back for a return trip. The resulting electron rain creates a force that binds us all to earth and tethers the astronaut or cosmonaut to the moon or to mars. Gravity may just be a mathematical-statistical result of the properties of a sphere. The mass and velocity of the electron is lighter and faster than the nucleus. How can hypothesis verification prove truth on such things?