What, you want me to do your homework for you?
On a more serious note, I will caveat everything by stating I am not a mathematician, I am an engineer by degree. Also, my math classes are 20 years in the past, and while I did reasonably well in calculus I and II (which is how my college divided them), and I struggled my way through differential equations, I would not trust my abilities to calculate an integral worth a flip.
In order for the calculus to be able to be computed, one first needs to derive the mathematical relationship and express it as a function. This can be a function with multiple variables, such as time, radius of the object, the amount of “stacking” that occurs when “space” is “displaced” by mass, and how that “stacking” changes when two objects are brought near each other. All of those relationships must be expressed mathematically.
Once those relationships are determined, one can then use some form of observation to collect data on actual measurements of some sort. This data can then be pressed through the mathematical relationships to help determine any scaling factors (i.e. constants of proportionality, such as G, Newton’s universal gravitation constant).
What calculus allows is to calculate a sum of results where the values at any particular point are different from other points. The basic relationship is measuring the area under a curve.
When computing area, it is very simple to calculate areas under straight lines. Squares, rectangles, triangles, etc have easy relationships to be able to create simple formulas for calculating the area. But how do you calculate the area of a curve that is not a simple circle?
The principle at play is that any area can be divided into any number of smaller areas that are mutually exclusive, such that the sum of all the individual areas will equal the total area. The next element in play is that one can make arbitrary choices upon how many pieces and how large or small to make them. Finally, there is a concept of infinitesimals, which is just taking that size determination to extremes. The result is that calculus uses integration as a means of summing up all the separate areas at all the locations and combining them to form a final result.
Of course, the relationships you are proposing are not 2-dimensional, but 3-dimensional, but the calculations can be computed using the same principles.
So you would need to determine the relationship of how mass “displaces space”, how that “displaced space” interacts with the “space” it is bumping into, what happens to that “displaced space” when two objects interact (such as the Earth in the Sun’s gravity field), and any other relationships that affect your results. The variability of curvature of the Earth’s surface, for example, is the kind of secondary computation that the calculus would be used to determine.
Seriously, you need to work on your terminology to find a way to express this in some manner that is coherent, because using the word “space” and the word “displaced” in this manner are not conducive to expressing a concept that can be understood, let alone evaluated to see if a mathematical relationship can be proposed and an experiment devised.
No, if anything, words are the inferior language, as demonstrated by your repeated repetition of the words you keep repeating repeatedly.
How do you know the theory is sound? What means have you used to validate it?
If I understand what you are trying to say, you are saying that mass somehow presses “space” out of the way, which stacks that “space” up into a denser ring of “space” around the matter, thus making “space” more concentrated in those rings than further away.
If I might create some kind of analogy, it would be like pressing marbles into foam, and then looking at the cross section of the distortions in the foam caused by the marbles. Around the marbles, the foam will be stretched and tight versus further away from the marbles where it will be spread more evenly. If you then bring 5 marbles close to each other, the compressed foam zones somehow interact to envelope the 5 marbles as a cluster rather than individually, meaning the foam between the marbles is pressed to the outside of the marble cluster.
Factually incorrect.
In short, the word “electron” was coined before the charges were determined, the positive and negative convention were assigned arbitrarily, and the electron was determined to be negatively charged because it deviated towards a positively charged plate.
This is not correct. We can see a distinction between electric fields and magnetic fields. For magnets, there is no such thing as a “magnetic monopole”, i.e. an independent magnetic charge. There are no positive magnetic charges and negative magnetic charges. Rather, you have magnets that are “positive” at one end and “negative” at the other, with pos and neg being an arbitrary convention.
However, electrical charges do exist in isolation. There are positive electrical charges, negative electrical charges, and neutral (no-charge).
This is false.
Well, then, you should be happy, because the particles attracted to the positive plate are called electrons and said to have a negative charge, the particles attracted to the negative plate are called protons and said to have a positive charge, and the particles that do not react are called neutrons and have a neutral charge, or no charge. Except you won’t be happy, because you think there is either having a charge or not having a charge or partially having a charge, such that having a charge already means it will be pushed away from the positive side, not having a charge means it will be attracted to the positive side in order to get a charge, and not reacting either way is somehow not charged but also charged.
Completely and totally wrong on all counts. Nobody named the particles by smashing atoms. The names and conventions for charge were long established before any atom smashing came along.
There are several examples of charged plates being used, but nothing that matches his descriptions.