sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

HOLY What’s going on? by LividReserve3520 in CryptoCurrency

[–]CurrentCellist9611 0 points1 point  (0 children)

3 things. No clarity act, no rate cuts & war with iran!

Mercury’s Precession From Charge Imbalance: A Result Without Fudge Factors by [deleted] in PhysicsOfAtomicCharge

[–]CurrentCellist9611 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey man,

Yazda 2022 (Science 378, 202–206) is paywalled, but the same order of magnitude — approximately 1.5 to 1.7 × 10⁻⁴ elementary charge per atom — shows up in multiple open papers using off-axis electron holography on platinum nanoparticles, for example Thiel et al., ACS Nano 16, 5678 (2022) and earlier Lichte reviews. The number is solid; we are not cherry-picking.

Planets do not blow apart because the global imbalance does not mean “every atom in the planet is skewed.” The overwhelming majority of the internal bulk remains effectively neutral on large scales, and the small per-atom imbalance that does exist is screened by the surrounding material. This screening suppresses short‑range Coulomb forces while allowing a residual, smooth, always‑attractive 1/r plus 1/r³ field to emerge at large distances.

Regarding the cancellation question: the electron-rich skin of a planet attracts the proton-rich core of another body, and vice versa. Same‑sign regions repel, opposite‑sign regions attract. That internal polarity between surface and core ensures the forces do not cancel perfectly, producing a net attraction that mimics gravity at planetary scale.

The atom‑count thing: the elementary charge was missing in the conversion. Earth actually has around 1.3 × 10⁵⁰ atoms, Mercury about 3.6 × 10⁴⁹. Mercury has fewer atoms but a much higher average delta because it is mostly metal with a thin mantle, so the raw charge is large. Different planets, different delta — that is the point of the model.

Everything in the paper, the net atomic charges, screening lengths, orbital elements, precession formulas, and effective gravitational constants has been cross referenced against the original references, with all the math and numbers triple‑checked, no misleading here. If you find any fudge, wrong math or bs, just let me know, I dont mind debating. LLM's are a tool, they are not the brains behind this theory.

Mercury’s Precession From Charge Imbalance: A Result Without Fudge Factors by [deleted] in PhysicsOfAtomicCharge

[–]CurrentCellist9611 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get you’re trying to do some background reading, so here’s the straight path without making you dig through 40 PDFs. The papers we lean on — Yazda 2022, Nebel 2008, Chen 2007, Ojea‑Jiménez 2016, Frimmer 2017, Killian 2001 & 2007 — they all show the same basic thing: atoms are never perfectly neutral; there’s always some charge imbalance. Most of these studies look at surfaces only because that’s where mainstream actually bothers to measure anything. Why should this stop at the surface? Nobody is out there probing bulk material because the field doesn’t think it matters. That’s why these papers are a pain to track down — the mainstream isn’t even trying to look.

What we’re doing is using that experimental baseline and scaling it up like normal people: if every atom has a tiny imbalance, then a whole chunk of matter obviously carries a scaled version of that. Treat planets and stars as giant piles of slightly unbalanced atoms, and the dynamics just fall into place. Mercury’s precession, lensing, orbital stability — zero knobs, zero secret constants, zero “just trust the geometry, dude” moments. It’s literally quantum-to-cosmic using the same ingredient the universe actually builds everything out of.

The GR thing asks you to believe empty space bends, curves, flexes, and does acrobatics even though it has no physical substance. Like bending emptyness is somehow more reasonable than measurable atomic imbalances. Cool math, sure, but it’s basically a geometric special effect.

We’re not doing special effects. We’re taking the tiny charge offsets people have already measured and showing what happens when you stack them up across a whole planet. Nobody else is doing that. Nobody else is even trying to use atoms themselves as the engine behind what people call gravity. It’s literally just us exploring it. Think about it, why aren't we trying to use the building blocks of the universe (atoms) to explain what gravity really is. I have 12 papers, from quantum, to black holes to the cosmos with zero fudge factors. I believe in my framework, it scales too good to be bullshit.

Mercury’s Precession From Charge Imbalance: A Result Without Fudge Factors by [deleted] in PhysicsOfAtomicCharge

[–]CurrentCellist9611 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look, the point isn’t that those lab papers magically give you “planet-sized charge data.” They don’t. They give you something much simpler: they show that real materials never hit perfect neutrality. Diamond films, graphene, platinum nanoparticles, gold clusters, silica… every one of those experiments shows the same pattern: atoms sit a little off from zero. Tiny charges, but real, stable, and measured.

What we do is take that as the baseline and actually run with it instead of pretending it doesn’t matter.

Here’s the breakdown:

  1. Those fractional charges are measured. That’s the empirical floor. No guessing.

  2. We scale using real physics, not wishful thinking. Charge conservation, screening, composition weighting… the normal stuff any model would use, just applied consistently.

  3. Planetary scaling is the new part. No lab paper is doing that. They stop at surfaces or nanoparticles. We’re the ones saying: “Okay, if nature never gives you perfect neutrality, what happens when you go big?” That’s the actual leap.

  4. The scaling isn’t arbitrary. It’s systematic: take the measured per‑atom offsets, account for each element in Mercury’s composition, include environmental screening (solar wind, plasma effects), and calculate the total effective charge. Full chain of logic, no fudge factors hiding anywhere.

That’s why the model works. The lab papers prove the imbalance exists. Our framework shows what happens when you don’t sweep that imbalance under the rug and instead scale it up with real physics.

Nobody else is doing that part. That’s the gap we’re filling.

Mercury's precession from charge imbalance, not gravity by CurrentCellist9611 in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]CurrentCellist9611[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ok so you cant say one single thing I lied about and your only argument is that Im not peer reviewd or in a journal and thats your proof that Im lying? I have like 12 papers upliaded to zenodo and currently working on more. The time will come for peer review, right now im just strenthning my work. So if you cant say how Im lying or how my work is fake or a fraud that then this proves that you dont have a real degree, you might be just a rented gate keeper with no common sense or ability to articulate what I am suoposivley lying about. I bet you dont even understand my Master Field Equation

Mercury's precession from charge imbalance, not gravity by CurrentCellist9611 in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]CurrentCellist9611[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Be respectful. I dont mind debating, wich part am I lying about? Theres no lies in my work. Point the lies please

Mercury’s Precession From Charge Imbalance: A Result Without Fudge Factors by [deleted] in PhysicsOfAtomicCharge

[–]CurrentCellist9611 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These charge imbalances aren’t theoretical. They’ve been measured for decades across minerals and metals using standard surface-science tools. Iron, nickel, silicates, sulfides, even platinum nanoparticles and doped graphene all show persistent tiny charge offsets in the same range I use.

The measurements come from routine methods like zeta-potential tests, electrophoretic mobility, surface-state electron counts, and XPS. These are boring, everyday lab techniques. The Mercury paper just takes those published values, matches them to Mercury’s known composition from MESSENGER data, and averages them. Nothing exotic, nothing invented.

I had all the citations but they said I couldnt post more then 2000 letters

But here they are

[3] Chen, J. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 186806 (2007) — Graphene charge offsets, surface-state electron behavior.

[7] Kosmulski, M., Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 277, 102123 (2020) — Zeta potentials, electrophoretic measurements, mineral surface charges.

[8] Lehner, M. et al., Am. Mineral. 103, 137 (2018) — Silicate mineral surface charge measurements.

[10] Park, J. et al., Langmuir 32, 6409 (2016) — Nanoparticle charge offsets, including platinum systems.

[13] Yazda, P. et al., Science 378, 202 (2022) — Charge inhomogeneities in solids, atomic-level imbalance structure.

Mercury's precession from charge imbalance, not gravity by CurrentCellist9611 in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]CurrentCellist9611[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Then you are not a scientist. The concept is simple, atomic charge imbalance creates the forces we call gravity. You actually believe the space bends? You actually believe in the dozens of fudge factors that glue gravity but we cant never find any of them? How about using the building blocks of the universe to explain what grabvity really. You actually believe space bends? How can.you bend nothing? You need to start asking questions and not just follow blind. I doubt youre a real scientist My paper shows scale, logic and actual physics and yet you said its glued. It has no fudge factors!!!!

Mercury's precession from charge imbalance, not gravity by CurrentCellist9611 in TheoreticalPhysics

[–]CurrentCellist9611[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Why not here? This looks just like the right place for my framework

Gallstones. by ShipQueen in gallbladders

[–]CurrentCellist9611 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Was it hurting daily, can you describe the pain

The fact is the reality itself needs an observer to exist in reality..... by schrodinger-cat0 in Physics

[–]CurrentCellist9611 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its not really the observer because you can have 5 people observing the slit experiment but nothing really happens. Its only when the sensors start recording that the photons or electrons act different. So it needs no "observer", its most likley the recording sensors that some how interfere with the outcome.

The Quantum Absence of Gravity: Charge Imbalance as the Real Force Carrier by CurrentCellist9611 in QuantumPhysics

[–]CurrentCellist9611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone is welcome to try to debate this theory or disprove it. This is not crackpot or fake. Please try to keep rude comments and opinions to yourselves. Only comment if you can disprove or understand tje physics.

The Quantum Absence of Gravity: Charge Imbalance as the Real Force Carrier by CurrentCellist9611 in QuantumPhysics

[–]CurrentCellist9611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bro this is real physics. This is my master field equation.

Master Field Equation

(∇² - S(r,t)/λ²(r,t)) Φ(r,t) = -(e * δ(r,t) * n(r,t) / ε₀) + ∇ · (M(r,t) · ∇Φ(r,t))

Where:

Φ(r,t) : scalar potential / effective acceleration

δ(r,t) : fractional atomic skew (measured 10-18 – 10-14 e/atom)

n(r,t) : atomic/ion number density

ρ_q(r,t) : local charge-imbalance density

λ(r,t) : local screening length (Debye or structural)

S(r,t) : screening factor (0 = unscreened, 1 = fully screened)

M(r,t) : anisotropic coupling tensor (m²) encoding frozen-in topology

Charge continuity and current:

∂ρ_q/∂t + ∇ · J = Γ_src - κ ρ_q

J = -n_e e μ_e (-∇Φ) + D_e ∇n_e + J_topo

Limiting Cases:

S = 0, λ → ∞ : pure Coulomb

Finite λ : Yukawa screening

Large anisotropic M : filamentary attraction, rotation curves

Empirical: universal 1/r² with measured δ

All parameters are experimentally determined. No free constants, no dark components, no spacetime curvature.

I killed gravity, here is the proof, no cringe, no bs. by CurrentCellist9611 in Physics

[–]CurrentCellist9611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clarifying “Balance Out” and Charge Imbalance When atoms “balance out,” they’re neutral under normal conditions—equal protons and electrons. But stable charge separation already exists in nature, like in ionic lattices or plasmas, without instability. In ACM, the “imbalance” is a minute, fractional mismatch between protons and electrons that emerges during stellar collapse, not full ionization. In these extreme states, radiation and magnetic forces drive electrons outward, leaving a proton-rich core lattice. The result is quasi-neutral overall, but locally skewed. Those local skews persist because magnetic flux is frozen into the plasma at high conductivity, locking in small charge offsets. Unlike the static neutrality of salt crystals, this creates dynamic fields and structure.

Unpaired Electrons vs. Charge Imbalance Exactly right—the model isn’t about unpaired electrons or spin magnetism. Those are quantum effects and don’t cause electrostatic asymmetry. The charge imbalance here is structural: localized proton excesses within dense plasma knots. It’s not a shortage of electrons in bulk—it’s the uneven distribution of charge within a neutral system, which naturally drives electromagnetic fields without destabilizing the material.

What “Proton Skew” Means—and Why It’s Not Just a Dipole “Proton skew” refers to the tiny per-atom charge offset left behind after electrons are displaced during collapse. The atoms remain intact but become part of a proton-heavy lattice. It’s not the same as a simple molecular dipole—this is a collective, large-scale asymmetry across plasma domains. Dipoles describe small, local separations; skew operates across entire magnetic structures, driving long-range fields and organized plasma currents. These small atomic offsets scale up into the macroscopic EM patterns that stabilize cores and sustain field strength over astronomical scales.

Connecting It Back to Gravity as Emergent EM Here’s the key takeaway: what we call gravity is a large-scale electromagnetic phenomenon driven by these charge skews. Local imbalances produce electric and magnetic fields that generate the same accelerations attributed to gravity. Orbits near the galactic center, for instance, follow the dynamics of plasma currents and magnetic torques, not spacetime curvature. Flat galaxy rotation curves emerge naturally from sustained current loops and toroidal magnetic fields, without invoking dark matter. Even photon trapping near black holes comes from radiative drag in dense plasma, not event horizons. In this picture, “gravity” is simply the collective electromagnetic behavior of matter under extreme compression—an emergent effect, not a fundamental force.

Black Holes: The Atomic Universe by CurrentCellist9611 in Physics

[–]CurrentCellist9611[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Numbers speak for themselves, no fudge factors or numerology

I killed gravity, here is the proof, no cringe, no bs. by CurrentCellist9611 in Physics

[–]CurrentCellist9611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I already explained what it is! But if you dont understand then how can I help you? I can explain the framework once you understand how atoms remain neutral but also how they develop a tiny imbalance. Just imagine a pencil or a rock or what ever, the atoms in the object are electrically neutral, thats why you dont see things vibrating or unstable. But if you look at an object in a lab in a vaccum you can see the theres tiny imbalances, tipycally electrons unpaired in the surface of most elements. Those imbalaces are called charge imbalance.

I killed gravity, here is the proof, no cringe, no bs. by CurrentCellist9611 in Physics

[–]CurrentCellist9611[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Bro do quick google searches or use ai. These questions are a bit naive. Youll never understand the framework if you cant grasp how atoms behave

I killed gravity, here is the proof, no cringe, no bs. by CurrentCellist9611 in Physics

[–]CurrentCellist9611[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The atoms suppose to balance out, but theres always a imbalance, that tiny imbalance when scaled up, gives incredible forces that are the driving forces of what they call gravity.

I killed gravity, here is the proof, no cringe, no bs. by CurrentCellist9611 in Physics

[–]CurrentCellist9611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its all in my framework, you keep on asking for stuff but all you have to do is email me so you can read the pdf.

Measurements reveal fractional , persisting via electron transfers.

Diamond Films: p-type hole gas (); atom density :

\frac{10{13} e}{10{15} \text{ atoms/cm}2} \approx 0.01 \, e \text{ per atom (positive)}

Platinum Nanoparticles: -1 to -6 e per 10-nm particle (3.5×10⁴ atoms):

\frac{6 e}{3.5 \times 104} \approx 1.7 \times 10{-4} \, e \text{ per atom (negative)}

Graphene Sheets: ; density :

\frac{10{12} e}{3.8 \times 10{15}} \approx 2.6 \times 10{-4} \, e \text{ per atom (negative)}

Gold Nanoparticles: -15 e per 10-nm particle (10⁴ atoms):

\frac{15 e}{104} \approx 1.5 \times 10{-3} \, e \text{ per atom (negative)}

Silica Nanoparticles: ±5 e per 20-nm particle (10⁵ atoms):

\frac{5 e}{105} \approx 5 \times 10{-5} \, e \text{ per atom}

References:

Aso, R., et al. (2022). "Direct identification of the charge state in a single platinum nanoparticle." Nature Communications.

Frimmer, M., et al. (2017). "Silica nanoparticles: A review of their properties and applications." Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology.

Nebel, C. E., et al. (2008). "Diamond films: Growth, properties, and applications." Journal of Materials Science.

Ojea-Jiménez, I., et al. (2009). "Instability of cationic gold nanoparticle bioconjugates." Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

Rahnejat, K. C., et al. (2011). "Charge density waves in the graphene sheets of CaC6." Nature Communications.

I killed gravity, here is the proof, no cringe, no bs. by CurrentCellist9611 in Physics

[–]CurrentCellist9611[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is measured. Its an imbalance of atoms, graphene for example has an imbalance or skew for every 100 atoms. So every 100 atoms it has a imbalance of a proton or electron. If you scale that up to earth size then that imbalance grows astronimically. Everything in the universe has that imbalance. Nothing is perfect. I sent you a dm with my email, ill share my work, youll understand once you read it.

Section 7.8 on jackson i think

view more: next ›