# Why Do We Say That the Electric Forces Are Stronger Than the Gravitational Forces? [duplicate]

I understand that both the electric and gravitational forces are inversely proportional to the squared distance from the point source and that the gravitational constant is around $$10^{-20}$$ times Coulomb's constant.

I don't understand why this suffices to conclude that the gravitational force is stronger than the electric force. The two constants that I see getting compared here have different units. One involves electric charges, while the other involves gravitational masses. To me, this makes as much sense as saying that a second is larger than a meter.

Is it related to the energy densities of these fields? If yes, how? I think that it is not the duplicate of the mentioned question because the point being asked in that question is why do we consider gravitational fields weaker even if they are more dominant in the universe at macroscopic levels. But, I want to ask that what are the criteria based on which we define the relative strength or weakness of forces/fields. What do we exactly mean by declaring a force/field stronger than the other? Is it related to their energy densities?

## marked as duplicate by BMS, Jerry Schirmer, Bernhard, Qmechanic♦Jul 26 '14 at 19:54

• Finally someone is asking the right question! Comparing a dimension-full interaction (gravity) with a dimensionless interaction (standard model interactions) is meaningless if no circumstance is provided. Just to give you some food for thought: •If the electron mass is increased to the mass of a flea egg ($10^{-10}$ kg, the plank mass), the gravitational attraction between electrons will be in balance with the repulsive electronic force. In technical jargon, the Schwarzschild radius and the Compton wavelength are of the same order as the Planck length for this case. – MadMax Mar 14 at 14:02