Electrogravity

[Webbman]

I would like to start a discussion on this. Wal discusses in some detail here:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/0 ... pace-news/

I'm not opposed to electrogravity because

1) I do believe gravity is an electrical effect and its direction and strength emulates that of the net energy flow into (or out of) a mass. Since the earth draws current continuously gravity is the result. Even if it is because of dipole interaction/alignments the reason is still the net flow of energy into a system.

2) Electrogravity allows for repulsion, which I believe the sun must be, since we have the "solar wind" constant ejections, radiance and all kinds of emissions. Again the proposed dipole alignment is in reaction to the net energy flow from the system.

discuss.

[toni]

If someone wanted to discuss this matter, then one must possess some knowledge of the wave which constructs the mass.
1. Gravity is the controling power behind electricity. That said, we should not be confused with the first half of the wave where the centripetal force is creating mass by squeezing or lensing light into a sphere or a point.
This effect, I would agree, could be called electrogravity (we had pictures earlier of the Filamentary Universe showing exactly the first half of the wave).The second half of the wave is centrifugal which means the pressure is from the inside out. Wal's showing the Jupiter shell is explaining exactly the process of nature's work. With one direction, electricity creates two opposite effects.

2. Repulsion and attraction are two votexs or effects created by electricity.
All stars throw a huge amount of energy through their equatorial plane and emit ultraviolet and infrared rays which, when approaching the planets, compress into heat. Wal is the only one that I know who shows quite accurately the workings of space. I think this is the only reason we are not allowed to fly over the poles.

[Zyxzevn]

In this paper is some good criticism on Electrogravity:

Examination of the "Electric Unverse" claims regarding planetary orbits - Bob Ham

In this paper I examine the claim that the orbits of planets can be explained by nothing more than
the electricity and magnetism. For the “overdensity claim,” I find that the surface charge densities
required to account for observations of the orbits of planets in our own Solar System are not physical.
For the “dipole claim,” I find that the electric field from the Sun is negligibly small, causing a central
force that is 75 orders of magnitude too small to account for the motion of the Earth. These models
cannot explain planetary orbits.

He gives some good points against electrogravity,
but he generalizes that this is the basis for the Electric Universe.
I see the Electric Universe independently of what gravity model you are using...

In my view electric forces only have a balancing role on planetary orbits,
and is gravity likely caused by quantum mechanics. (See link)

[Webbman]

G=0.0000000000667 is a little problematic for me.

[Bob_Ham]

G=0.0000000000667 is a little problematic for me.

Independent of your feelings about gravity, what do you think about how my paper shows that electrogravity isn't possible? Maybe gravity isn't the answer, but the calculations done in this paper prove that electricity isn't what attracts the Earth to the Sun (given that it is 1075 times too weak to account for this).

[Webbman]

I don't worry much about the dipoles. Its the net energy the earth receives and more specifically the gap in what it receives and what it requires that makes gravity what it is. If the dipoles are present its because they have been aligned to the flow of energy.

its hard to measure because your trying to measure a gap.

at the end of the day what draws the current? the source of the current or the device? The device.

the earth tries to draw a current proportional to its total mass such that the mass can reach equilibrium. Since it fails to draw sufficient current for its needs it continues to draw and the result combined with rotation is organization of matter by weight. The draw creates the flow toward the earth and the rotation regulates that flow.

planets that satisfy their current needs become stars. I imagine it goes one way or the other and a true equilibrium would be a rarity.

the simplest equation of all:

intake-requirement=gravity.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Webbman.

I propose the following hypothesis:

The electric force is repulsive. It is the radiance of the Sun, which is repulsing matter from the Sun.
The electric force is photon bombardment.
A dense stream of photons in a wire circuit "pushes" electrons. We call it electricity.
A radiating field of photons "pushes" electrons, ions and neutral particles away from the Sun. We call it solar wind.

Gravitons are 'photons' which are orders of magnitude smaller again.
To photons, gravitons are like photons are to us.
Being so much smaller, they go so much faster than the speed of light.
Being so small, gravitons pass though atoms and "cog" with the atomic internal structures, creating the effect we call gravity, and which causes matter to clump together.

Electricity and gravity work together as two opposing forces which keep the celestial bodies in their orbits.

I confess, I never wanted to believe in gravitons.
But since this model came into my head I haven't been able to disprove and dismiss it.
Paul

[comingfrom]

G=0.0000000000667 is a little problematic for me.

Independent of your feelings about gravity, what do you think about how my paper shows that electrogravity isn't possible? Maybe gravity isn't the answer, but the calculations done in this paper prove that electricity isn't what attracts the Earth to the Sun (given that it is 1075 times too weak to account for this).

Thank you, Bob. This is what I think.

Basically, you are saying gravity cannot be electric because of your calculations.

But maybe gravity is electric, and you aren't taking something into account, in your calculations.

You are using the existing definition of electricity to disprove a possibly new definition of electricity.

How about starting with the assumption that gravity is electric, and then rerunning your calculations again, this time knowing that the gravitational aspect of electricity is 1075 stronger than electrical aspect of electricity (with respect to macro bodies, I presume - since we know* electric force is 1037 stronger than gravity).

Cheers, Paul

*ref Gravity is Really Weak?

[Webbman]

assuming the graviton is an elementary particle, how would it self assemble into something more complex if it were only surrounded by itself?

[Bob_Ham]

How about starting with the assumption that gravity is electric, and then rerunning your calculations again, this time knowing that the gravitational aspect of electricity is 1075 stronger than electrical aspect of electricity (with respect to macro bodies, I presume - since we know* electric force is 1037 stronger than gravity).

The gravitational aspect of electricity? Could you please explain what you mean by that? What about electricity do you think could cause a "gravitational aspect" (which is only attractive and never repulsive) that is 1075 times stronger than the force that electric dipoles are already known (from experiments) to exert?

By what mechanism do you propose charged particles could create these two completely different forces? Could it be that the charges of the particles cause the regular electric dipole forces that we know and that the masses of the particles cause this "gravitational aspect" to which you allude?

[kevin]

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... ect080.htm

Which came first? the chicken or the egg.
Electricity/gravity....which comes first?
Kevin.... who doesn't normally venture up here ...been a hobbit as I am.

[comingfrom]

assuming the graviton is an elementary particle, how would it self assemble into something more complex if it were only surrounded by itself?

By being spun up.
Larger particles are simply smaller particles with more spins, which is what gives them greater mass.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Bob.

The gravitational aspect of electricity? Could you please explain what you mean by that?

What I mean by that is, do you disprove theories before trying them on?

I see that you are using current mainstream theory to disprove a possible alternate theory.
If the alternate theory is true, then mainstream explanations no longer apply, and cannot be used to disprove a more correct theory.

What about electricity do you think could cause a "gravitational aspect" (which is only attractive and never repulsive) that is 1075 times stronger than the force that electric dipoles are already known (from experiments) to exert?

I proposed that electricity is charge photons and gravity is gravitons, which are photons of another order of magnitude smaller.
In this model there are multiple orders of size magnitude below what we now call the quantum level.

By what mechanism do you propose charged particles could create these two completely different forces?

Newtonian mechanics.
I try to stay on the fundamental laws of physics whether we are at a quantum level or cosmic scale.

Could it be that the charges of the particles cause the regular electric dipole forces that we know and that the masses of the particles cause this "gravitational aspect" to which you allude?

I do think gravitons could be the particles the make up the electric fields of charge photons, even as the charge photons make up the electric fields of atomic and subatomic particles.

Paul

[comingfrom]

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/cienc ... ect080.htm

Which came first? the chicken or the egg.
Electricity/gravity....which comes first?
Kevin.... who doesn't normally venture up here ...been a hobbit as I am.

Gravitons were here first, and smaller stuff before that. The electromagnetic spectrum came later, and that eventually led to the creation of baryonic matter. The appearance of baryonic matter led to the creation of the celestial bodies, stellar systems and galaxies.