The wider implications of the net charge of heavenly bodies

[scowie]

According to EU theory, planets and stars are not electrically neutral, hence the Sun's electric field is responsible for the cometary behaviour of asteroids and planets. I reckon all solar system bodies have some degree of net positive charge and this will have wider implications that I haven't seen mentioned in the articles here. It would mean that in addition to the mass-induced gravitational attraction between bodies there is an element of electric repulsion, hence the orbits of solar system bodies are a result of their specific charges and not just their masses. Not taking this into account means that the mainstream's calculations for the masses and densities of heavenly bodies are all too low. I believe this to be most evident in the Saturnian system.

Of all the planets, I reckon Saturn has the greatest charge in proportion to it's mass. This must be the reason it has such prominent rings, but will also be the reason that it's density has been calculated to be only two thirds that of water. Btw, it is not just Saturn itself that supposedly has such a low density. Many of it's moons supposedly do too. This has led mainstream science to hypothesize the "rubble-pile moon"; a moon that is made out of a loose collection of rock fragments with the gaps between them taking up a greater volume than the rock. This is just one of many contrivances the mainstream scientific community are forced to invent due to their stubborn refusal to change their base assumptions.

The planet with the 2nd most prominent rings and the 2nd lowest density calculation is Uranus — signs that tell me that it has the 2nd greatest charge in proportion to it's mass. Since Uranus is the 3rd largest planet by radius, it is probably the 3rd most massive despite the mainstream calculating a mass lower than Neptune.

The terrestrial planet with the highest net charge (and hence the lowest density calculation) is probably Mars. The low density calculations for it's moons Phobos and Deimos mean they fall into the "rubble-pile" category too.

There are many dwarf planets, asteroids and comets that supposedly have very low densities. We are told that the recently visited 67P is half as dense as water. Doubtful, I'd say. Electric repulsion between probe and comet will be responsible for this underestimation.

These mass and density miscalulations go beyond the solar system. According to the mainstream there is a super-massive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way, it's mass being calculated from the speedy orbits of it's nearest stars. According to Electric/Plasma Universe theory though, this central structure is a negatively charged plasmoid, hence there must be attractive electric forces between it and the positively charged stars in addition to the gravitational. Neglecting this will result in a mass calculation for Sagittarius A* that is too great.

The negative charge of this central object will have influence across the galaxy. Being positively charged, the Milky Way's stars would orbit this plasmoid at a greater velocity than the more neutral matter would. This may well be the reason why the Milky Way's dusty spiral arms appear to revolve slower than the stars themselves do.

[Metryq]

this will have wider implications that I haven't seen mentioned in the articles here.

I don't have a specific example on tap, but this is mentioned in many EU writings, articles and forum postings—everything from the comet-like tail of Venus sweeping Earth (and likewise for other planets), the "too rapid for gravity alone" circularization of orbits after catastrophic events (a la Velikovsky), and electrical effects on gravity and mass. Oh yes, this has been mentioned many times.

(And by the way, watch those contractions: it's = it is. It is not a possessive.)

[kell1990]

According to EU theory, planets and stars are not electrically neutral, hence the Sun's electric field is responsible for the cometary behaviour of asteroids and planets. I reckon all solar system bodies have some degree of net positive charge and this will have wider implications that I haven't seen mentioned in the articles here. It would mean that in addition to the mass-induced gravitational attraction between bodies there is an element of electric repulsion, hence the orbits of solar system bodies are a result of their specific charges and not just their masses. Not taking this into account means that the mainstream's calculations for the masses and densities of heavenly bodies are all too low. I believe this to be most evident in the Saturnian system.

Of all the planets, I reckon Saturn has the greatest charge in proportion to it's mass. This must be the reason it has such prominent rings, but will also be the reason that it's density has been calculated to be only two thirds that of water. Btw, it is not just Saturn itself that supposedly has such a low density. Many of it's moons supposedly do too. This has led mainstream science to hypothesize the "rubble-pile moon"; a moon that is made out of a loose collection of rock fragments with the gaps between them taking up a greater volume than the rock. This is just one of many contrivances the mainstream scientific community are forced to invent due to their stubborn refusal to change their base assumptions.

The planet with the 2nd most prominent rings and the 2nd lowest density calculation is Uranus — signs that tell me that it has the 2nd greatest charge in proportion to it's mass. Since Uranus is the 3rd largest planet by radius, it is probably the 3rd most massive despite the mainstream calculating a mass lower than Neptune.

The terrestrial planet with the highest net charge (and hence the lowest density calculation) is probably Mars. The low density calculations for it's moons Phobos and Deimos mean they fall into the "rubble-pile" category too.

There are many dwarf planets, asteroids and comets that supposedly have very low densities. We are told that the recently visited 67P is half as dense as water. Doubtful, I'd say. Electric repulsion between probe and comet will be responsible for this underestimation.

These mass and density miscalulations go beyond the solar system. According to the mainstream there is a super-massive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way, it's mass being calculated from the speedy orbits of it's nearest stars. According to Electric/Plasma Universe theory though, this central structure is a negatively charged plasmoid, hence there must be attractive electric forces between it and the positively charged stars in addition to the gravitational. Neglecting this will result in a mass calculation for Sagittarius A* that is too great.

The negative charge of this central object will have influence across the galaxy. Being positively charged, the Milky Way's stars would orbit this plasmoid at a greater velocity than the more neutral matter would. This may well be the reason why the Milky Way's dusty spiral arms appear to revolve slower than the stars themselves do.

What makes you think that everything in the universe can be found in the local distribution?

AFAIK, no one claims to be able to quantify everything in the universe. It is a fool's errand to try to capture such a thing.

EU advocates run the risk of being tried for not being able to explain everything, when sometimes everything is not explainable.

But what EU advocates have done is to present a better explanation for the events that we can see. It is very true that we do no understand some of them, most of them probably. But we keep trying to understand how the universe works, little by little.

[scowie]

I don't have a specific example on tap, but this is mentioned in many EU writings, articles and forum postings—everything from the comet-like tail of Venus sweeping Earth (and likewise for other planets), the "too rapid for gravity alone" circularization of orbits after catastrophic events (a la Velikovsky), and electrical effects on gravity and mass. Oh yes, this has been mentioned many times.

It is the measurements of mass and density that I think EU theorists may be missing a trick with. According to the mainstream, the Kepler mission has discovered planets with the density of styrofoam! I reckon EU theorists are missing the chance to call BS on such claims.

What makes you think that everything in the universe can be found in the local distribution?

Huh? I don't know where you gleaned that from.

[nick c]

hi scowie,

It is the measurements of mass and density that I think EU theorists may be missing a trick with. According to the mainstream, the Kepler mission has discovered planets with the density of styrofoam! I reckon EU theorists are missing the chance to call BS on such claims.

I do not know how EU theorists are "missing a trick". What are they supposed to do?
Wal Thornhill has written and spoken several times on this very subject.
see: Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe
Highlight added

Matter and mass

Gravity acts in proportion to the mass of an object. What do we mean when we refer to the ‘mass’ of an object? “One of the most astonishing features of the history of physics is the confusion which surrounds the definition of the key term in dynamics, mass.” [13] Early in the 20th century numerous textbooks equated the mass of an object to its weight. That equation led to confusion because it doesn’t explain why the mass of an object we measure on a weighing machine (gravitational mass) is identical to the mass of that object when we push it (inertial mass).

When it was found that atoms are composed of charged particles, there were attempts to explain mass in terms of electromagnetism. Henri Poincaré wrote in 1914, “What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin.” It makes good sense that the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass should be explained by the electrical structure of matter. However, it is not the philosophical concept of mass but its mathematical treatment that occupies physicists. Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, demonstrated that mass and electromagnetic energy are directly related. But mystification resulted when the earlier concept that related mass to ‘quantity of matter’ was unconsciously substituted. Textbooks and encyclopaedias today slip unnoticeably into the error of using the words ‘mass’ and ‘matter’ interchangeably. A NASA educational website tells us that “mass is a measure of how much matter a planet is made of.” It shows that the confusion of mass with quantity of matter infects astrophysics.

The consequences are profound for cosmology. The mass of a celestial body cannot tell us about its composition. We cannot say what the Sun is made from! Another example is comet nuclei, which are electrically charged bodies. They register masses that should have them constructed like an empty sponge yet they look like solid rock. It is their appearance, together with the recently recovered high-temperature minerals (rock particles) from a comet, that give the accurate picture. Comets and asteroids are fragments of planets. They are not primordial—quite the reverse, in fact.

This inexcusable philosophical muddle over matter and mass has given rise to violation of the fundamental physics principle of no creation or annihilation of matter. It has allowed a miraculous cosmological creation story to gain currency, known as the ‘big bang.’ [14] Notions of ‘vacuum energy’ and of particles ‘winking in and out of existence’ in the vacuum of space are similarly miraculous. The simple fact is that we have no concept of why matter manifests with mass.

But when we apply force to a body, how is that force transferred to overcome inertia? The answer is ‘electrically’ by the repulsion between the outer electrons in the atoms closest to the points of contact. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass strongly suggests that the force of gravity is a manifestation of the electric force.

[scowie]

I do not know how EU theorists are "missing a trick". What are they supposed to do?
Wal Thornhill has written and spoken several times on this very subject.
see: Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe

What mass/gravity is is a different subject. Wal is saying that you can't tell composition from mass. I am saying that the mainstream are failing to measure mass correctly in the first place and that's why their ideas on the composition of things are wrong.

[Bengt Nyman]

I am glad to see that mainstream is waking up to the importance of electric charge and subsequent force interactions. Since I maintain that gravity is nothing but interaction and posturing between electrical charges within outwardly neutral bodies, maybe mainstream is nearing an understanding of our electric universe including gravity, which I am sure will have far reaching implications for the Standard Model in general.

[Zyxzevn]

Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe

Electric gravity is an interesting theory, but where I can find more info on that?
It should be interesting to test or improve this theory in some way.

[nick c]

Electric gravity is an interesting theory, but where I can find more info on that?
It should be interesting to test or improve this theory in some way.

Wal has derived his ideas on gravity from the work of Ralph Sansbury, a maverick physicist.
I had several links to Sansbury but all of them seem to be dead.
There were a couple of threads on this forum but again, I think most of links in them are dead:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=384
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 7&start=15

more information from Thornhill:
http://wealthshare.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... rys-model/
http://saturniancosmology.org/files/tho ... ulpher.txt

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/spec.html

a paper by Sansbury but it does not appear to be directly related to the topic that is of interest here...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985RScI...56..415S

That is pretty much all of the live links that I have at this time, maybe somebody can dig up some direct links to Sansbury's work.

[Bengt Nyman]

Electric gravity is an interesting theory, but where I can find more info on that?

http://www.dipole.se

[celeste]

Nick, I'm wondering if Wal and Ralph Sansbury are still making a wrong assumption about gravity? " This gives some meaning to the term ‘instantaneous action at a distance’. (Note that this is a requirement for any new theory of gravity)." from http://wealthshare.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... rys-model/

Why this requirement? We know that the speed of gravity has not been measured in the lab. We've merely reasoned (since Newton's time), that if gravity did not act instantaneously, then planetary orbits would quickly break down. Wal has shown, however, that there may be a mechanism to circularize orbits. We also know that orbits appear to obey the Titius-Bode law (you don't have to accept my mechanism, just consider that the law itself may have some mechanism).

So, how can we rule out this:
Let's say gravity propagates as slow as light speed. While this should lead to ever widening orbits, we have Wal's method to maintain circularized orbits, and then some mechanism that determines that these circular orbits must be at these radii only.

Wal has argued that Venus was once in a more erratic orbit, and is now in a more circular orbit (one that also obeys Titius-Bode, I'll add). I accept that he is correct. If, however, we have forces that can dampen an erratic orbit into a nice circular orbit, then shouldn't those forces be strong enough to maintain already circular orbits against any aberration caused by a gravitational time delay?

An even simpler summary:
If gravity propagates at finite speed, gravity only orbits will break down. So we can assume either (A) gravity propagates instantaneously, or (B) gravity is not the only force that maintains planetary orbits. I think assumption A is wrong.

[Bengt Nyman]

Before you ask yourself: What is the speed of gravity ?
Ask yourself: What is the speed of electrostatic attraction, or electrostatic repulsion ?

[Metryq]

So we can assume either (A) gravity propagates instantaneously, or (B) gravity is not the only force that maintains planetary orbits. I think assumption A is wrong.

False dichotomy. Tom Van Flandern's Meta Model put gravity at around 20 billion times the speed of light—"effectively" instantaneous on the scale of the Solar system. While I am not arguing against EU (I find the model very compelling) I usually assume there is a third (and fourth, and fifth...) alternative that no one has voiced yet, or that I simply do not know about.

I am just conservative enough to believe that gravity has something to do with the orbits of the planets. Yet I've read that a gravity-only system is inherently unstable. And then there are the arguments about rapidly circularizing orbits. "Instantaneous," like infinity, implies many things. For example, how can something instantaneous (essentially everywhere at once) have a fall-off distance? For that matter, how can anything instantaneous "propagate"? Here also I am not arguing that gravity is not instantaneous, but I try to avoid the pitfalls of either/or thinking.

In short, I agree with you: I do not think gravity is "instantaneous" and I think there is more to the structure of the universe than gravity.

[Zyxzevn]

More on the nature of light

There are some videos about making pictures with very short pulses of light.
One famous example is the video of a bottle of coca cola where each frame is made with a different pulse
on a different time, making a "movie" of a trillion frames per second.
They have cameras open on each frame a long time, so it does not show the effect as described.
It would be very easy to use that system get get more information on the nature of light.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9vd4HWlVA (TED)
And:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snSIRJ2brEk

But what they claim is that they have to correct the frame, because of side effects of "relativity".
I hope we will get to see what these effects are exactly.

On the nature of gravity.
I agree with Thornhill that gravity must be instantaneous, and I believe that any "field"
in nature is in force instantaneous, but not the particle and energy. It is the only way
energy can be conserved.
It is very similar to the basics of quantum physics: wave equations are instant, particles are slow.

If a field has a speed:
Assuming 2 circling objects. An object transmits the forcefield, the receiving object moves
in the time the field is underway. Vice versa the original transmitter gets a force back after its own movement.
In this movement an electron or a planet would lose force due to the difference in position,
and this will cause the objects to circle away from each other.
While we can correct the this movement with special and general relativity, I don't think it is completely correct.
Relativity is a slightly wrong simplification of the whole field concept. It's like saying: don't look at the mess,
we will correct it with some miracle maths. They claim relativity stabilizes the orbits too,
but its maths is so complicated that I did not find a readable article anywhere.

We should bring the basis of science back to the laboratory. Currently they are full with people
making up complicated theories, trying to finish their PHD or maintaining their high salaries.
Instead we can measure the weird properties of light, and measure quantum physics. From there we can
improve the model of relativity, and tell mainstream science exactly where it lost its grip on reality.
I don't think they will listen immediately, but when they do it will hurt.

[Zyxzevn]

They have cameras open on each frame a long time, so it does not show the effect as described.

Correction. (2)
From another article and its
comments on reddit I learned that they seem to use a moving mirror to capture the time of the pulse.
So the Y axis becomes time instead of Y. And then repeat it for each Y again, so many pictures
can form a movie.
That means that the shutter stays open, and Sansbury experiment is not exactly copied.
They report "relativity" side effects instead of Sansbury's missing light.
Interesting subject..