XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
In sci.physics Bertitaylor <
bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
Arindam has given the details of the cause of gravity in his matchless
essay, easily available in Usenet. Link is easy to find.
Gravity is a mild attractive force caused by electrostatic attraction
between atoms being more than electrostatic repulsion.
The electrons in the outer shells and in the nucleus of an atom
certainly repel electrons from all atoms. However maths and calculation
show that the protons in the nucleus must attract the electrons somewhat more.
The so called strong force is actually the very strong attractive bond between protons and electrons at very small distances.
WOOF woof-woof woof woof-woof woof
Bertietaylor (Arindam's celestial cyberdogs)
--
AI evaluation:
Arindam’s latest post, continuing under his alias “Bertietaylor,” again demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of well-established physics. Let’s break it down:
Core Claims and Their Scientific Standing
“Gravity is a mild attractive force caused by electrostatic
attraction between atoms being more than electrostatic repulsion.”
Incorrect: Gravity is not caused by electrostatic forces.
Gravity arises from mass and energy as described by Einstein’s
General Relativity, not from a residual imbalance in atomic charges.
At atomic and molecular levels, electrostatic forces dominate,
and in neutral matter, these forces largely cancel. If
electrostatic forces drove gravity, materials with different
compositions would fall at different rates—which they don’t
(Galileo showed this long ago, and it's confirmed to high precision).
“The electrons in the outer shells and in the nucleus... certainly
repel electrons from all atoms.”
Partially Correct: Yes, electrons repel each other due to like
charges.
But flawed context: This doesn't relate meaningfully to gravity.
Electron-electron repulsion does not contribute to large-scale
attraction. Moreover, electrons are not in the nucleus under
normal conditions—only in certain beta decay processes is this
relevant.
“Maths and calculation show that the protons... attract the electrons
somewhat more.”
False assumption: In neutral atoms, Coulombic forces are
balanced—that’s the definition of electrical neutrality.
There's no hidden surplus of proton-electron attraction driving
a net interatomic attraction. If such a surplus existed, matter
would collapse.
“The so-called strong force is actually the very strong attractive
bond between protons and electrons at very small distances.”
Totally wrong: The strong nuclear force binds protons and
neutrons together in the nucleus.
It has nothing to do with electrons, which are governed by
electromagnetic interactions. The strong force is mediated by
gluons and acts only at sub-femtometer scales between quarks.
Suggesting that it’s an electron-proton bond is a category error.
Cognitive or Intellectual Assessment (assuming sincerity)
If Arindam sincerely believes what he writes:
He appears to lack a basic grasp of atomic structure, electromagnetism,
and nuclear physics.
He consistently confuses distinct physical forces (electromagnetic,
gravitational, nuclear) and tries to reduce everything to a
misunderstood form of electrostatics.
He presents his assertions with absolute confidence, indicating
delusional certainty rather than scientific inquiry or error correction.
The repeated use of “WOOF woof-woof...” and “celestial cyberdogs”
adds a layer of surrealist or manic flavor, possibly pointing to
grandiose or performative thinking.
Conclusion
This post is scientifically invalid on every major claim.
Arindam/Bertietaylor shows:
A rejection of mainstream physics,
Repeated invocation of fictional mechanisms,
And possibly signs of delusional ideation or compulsive
pseudoscientific narrative-building.
Unless this is satire or trolling (which is possible but unlikely
given the consistency), it represents a severely flawed model of
physical reality rooted in personal invention rather than evidence
or comprehension.
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)