Not sure about conduct (this depends on structure) but in total it would have a stronger charge field (the charge field is out from the surface). It would also block more in general , ie probably hotter core and more active aurora.comingfrom wrote:Thank you, Daniel.
So, a dense metallic moon would conduct more charge than a hollow or porous rock (less dense) moon?
Or would it block the charge?
ProbablyYou are confirming what I said while disagreeing with me.
You have to account for the total charge field, yes there is more charge out at the equator, but subsequently there is also more gravity (due to larger radius), remember the charge field is a compound field.But densities aside, look at Mathis' charge vectors at 30 degrees N and S of the equator.
They are in vector opposition to gravity there, regardless of the densities.
That means gravity aught to be weakened around the equator.
The charge coming in the poles is working in the same direction as gravity.
That means gravity aught to be strengthened near the poles.
That is opposite to the data.
I think you are having a moment. I am having difficulty to explain why, but as said above i think you are missing the point that the charge field is a compound field, it is about totals, the charge field strength (and gravity) is taken at the surface of a sphere, you have to know the density for charge and radius for gravity, using those number you can calculate what happens at the surface.Or am I having a moment...? like when all the craters look instead like domes, and no matter what, you can't get them to look like craters again.
Paul
Seeing surface features impact a "gravity map" should tell you that in all the field is quite balanced at the surface. I think that is actually a very good insight, it would mean that charge photons ARE linked to gravity somehow, maybe even causing it..... food for thought.
Regards,
Daniel