A few questions from a new convert

[Corpuscles]

Hi all

Firstly, congratulations to admin,mods and all participants for this wonderful, informative, well structured,dignified forum site. IT IS A CREDIT to all!

I am a mid aged Australian with a hobby interest in physics, but have a lot of "catching up"to do!

I have crammed much reading mainly sourced here recently ...but as you realise this can create confusion.

I seek someones help on a few (hopefully minor issues) to help guide and create some framework.


Regardless of what "Gravity" is whether a by-product of Electro Magnetism with or without Aether push /pull implications

Questions
1. Does the EU /ES model maintain or base the location of orbit and structure of the solar system on traditional gravity? or does it supersede this weak force with other stronger electro magnetic forces?

2. Does EU/ES tend to implicate that the large extended planets magnetoshphere domains organise the orbits and rotational aspects?

3. Ok the Universal Birkland currents create magnetic fields , Z pinch define star location, but can someone try to simply describe the electric "motortype" rotational aspect of our sun for me?

4. If there is connector pipes from Sun to Earth...is that the neagtive ions being attracted to Earths ionoshphere or some other reason? What implictions forthe ordering of solar system and rotations etc?

Any help will be very gratefully appreciated THANK YOU !

[moses]

Questions
1. Does the EU /ES model maintain or base the location of orbit and structure of the solar system on traditional gravity? or does it supersede this weak force with other stronger electro magnetic forces?
2. Does EU/ES tend to implicate that the large extended planets magnetoshphere domains organise the orbits and rotational aspects?
Corpuscles

Inside the Earth's double layer around the magnetosphere, the Earth is shielded
from 'electro magnetic forces'. However the double layer moves in response to
electro magnetic forces, and this may bring to bear a force on the Earth. Also
other forces can penetrate a Faraday cage. But gravity is deemed to be the major
effect inside the double layer. However, if eg Venus comes closer to the Earth
and the Venus double layer comes into contact with the Earth double layer then
Birkeland currents will flow between the planets and this will result in changed
orbits which will tend to stabilise the system.

The other questions are full scale and Wal says it best.
Mo

[KickLaBuka]

1. Does the EU /ES model maintain or base the location of orbit and structure of the solar system on traditional gravity? or does it supersede this weak force with other stronger electro magnetic forces?

2. Does EU/ES tend to implicate that the large extended planets magnetoshphere domains organise the orbits and rotational aspects?

3. Ok the Universal Birkland currents create magnetic fields , Z pinch define star location, but can someone try to simply describe the electric "motortype" rotational aspect of our sun for me?

4. If there is connector pipes from Sun to Earth...is that the neagtive ions being attracted to Earths ionoshphere or some other reason? What implictions forthe ordering of solar system and rotations etc?

Your questions are answered at http://www.electromass.com Until recently, the Electric Universe Model was the most applicable, and most correct. This group has faught against the mainstream, and now they can vask in it.

[Corpuscles]

I thank you both for a reply.

Justin

I have read your book quickly and it deserves another read. Good effort!... to take someone from the very basics of physics and expose them to EU/ES concept. I applaud your effort

I am not qualified to make critical comment other than ,to as friendly as possible, to suggest you take your own advice and be always open to new ideas.It seems you take a massive (avoiding the begging pun of "Quantum" ) jump from conventional "basics" to a personalised version , of theory.


I note you have a thread on EU board.I am eager for the poster JungleLord (amongst the other very knowledageable posters here) to read and review and add comment .He in particular appears to have, a solid grasp of APM with an almost is "H Aspden like" passion for the aether....very related IMHO to your ponderings of the double helix vortex.

I feel a bit of a inarticulate fool in that I have seen D Scotts diagram of the proposed magnetic and electric fields of the sun but was really trying to get a better feel for specific interaction with the all pervading universal Birkeland currents and what impact or causal effect that has on rotation and solar orbits etc.

Cheers & good luck
Corp

[KickLaBuka]

Corpsules,

Thanks for the feedback!!! I will focus on adjusting my interaction between the limbic (feeling) brain and the cerebral cortex (thinking) brain, and always welcome new thoughts.

With regard to Junglelord and the aether, and Scott and the sky, I respect both of their work insofar as I have only read bits of their thoughts. I reference Scott's sky three or four times in my book. This ties into your comments about my massive jump past the planetary scales. There are a few reasons for this: 1. I want lots of room for discovery; 2. I was in a very big hurry.

At the same time I say I want room for others' discovery, I also want it to be clear that the electromass concept is not a theory, until it is failed to be disproved. For example, I disproved the Electric Universe Concept on page 19 where I show that mass is required. It doesn't make PEU concept any less important, and I would like to read the work of these guys to know what they have been studying--frankly, actively. I want to learn about MGmirkin's work on Double Layers and how the electric universe Model has studied them.

-Justin

[Corpuscles]

KickLa/Justin

My friend. I note your passion enthusiasm and eagerness to promote your shall we say "discovery".I get the impression, I maybe a bit "longer in the tooth"albeit cetainly not wiser. But tip: Don't trumpet in their ears...but appeal for their assistance ..you will "catch more flies with honey than vinegar"

Checkout some o fthe other "master" posters discussion on "heavy duty threads discussing Boscovich and Maxwell ....to get a feel for the intensity of knowledge, experience and thought capacity ...you are dealing with here!

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... ?f=8&t=141

I strongly recommend that you locate and download H Aspdens book "The physics of Creation"...sorry I nolonger have a link as I obtained it free from the web somewhere years ago.

Moreover look at this:

http://www.16pi2.com/unified_charge_theory.htm

You seem to have the patience and training to follow the mathematics involvedin both (I don't completely).

Although, I am not yet completed my slow progress through the above work, you may just "discover" that others have similiar (but more expanded) thoughts as your Electromass concept!..and much material to fill in the "gaps"


Please accept this as as intended , as a sincere attempt to assist, rather than criticise.
Kind regards
Corpuscles

[KickLaBuka]

Mr. Corp,

I have read these posts and maintain my standpoints--although from a hugely different perspective of the integrity of many of the posters on this forum; for the models which are persuaded; and for Faraday and Thornhill in general. Speaking strictly in tongues, four plus four equals eight congruously. Eight has five letters--not four. Swine flew. Vinegar will get rid of the flies. Have a Cigar.

I'll read on. Defy Tyranny!
-Justin

[KickLaBuka]

....to get a feel for the intensity of knowledge, experience and thought capacity ...you are dealing with here!

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... ?f=8&t=141

I have added the Maxwell Physical Model Thread as "related topics" in my works cited.

[Corpuscles]

Justin

I apologise if my post seemed rude or arrogant. Frankly,I was merely feeding back that I think your work needs to be "fleshed out" to deal with more issues, before the more knowledgeable thinkers here take your requests for critical appraisal more seriously. Therefore it ought not be presented or touted as being conclusive.

I don't "get"your "speaking in tongues" comment? I not at all religious, but open minded.

Nor did I specifically think that thread was super important to your work!, albeit Maxwell is very relevant to this EU paradigm. Merely advisingthere are some very very astute knowledgeable thinkers giving their time & effort here so approach carefully.

I find the concept of the aether compelling given the overwhelming bearing it has on the work of so many great scientists and ground breaking discoverers.

The APM Unified theory (link I posted) is becoming all the more credibile to me. But not 100% convinced yet. The issue is it seems to address & answer not only "what is", "but why it is". You would have a better chance of grasping it all than me.. ..give it a serious open minde look!

From undertaking much more reading here, I understand why there were few response to my seemingly naive questions in OP. There seems a lot of conjecture and disagreement on those general areas here, which takes discussion outside pure EU theory.

Anyway except for you two,it seems my first simple post/thread was a...FAIL!

Cheers

Corp

[KickLaBuka]

I apologise if my post seemed rude or arrogant. Frankly,I was merely feeding back that I think your work needs to be "fleshed out" to deal with more issues, before the more knowledgeable thinkers here take your requests for critical appraisal more seriously.
Therefore it ought not be presented or touted as being conclusive.

OK. That's a huge step up from hospitalization requests. No harm done. No ill thoughts.

I don't "get"your "speaking in tongues" comment? I not at all religious, but open minded.

This may have been misleading. I have no intention of bringing religion into this work. It's just that lately, I'm not afraid of double entendre linguistics. The hidden meanings in those random comments were meant as a response to several posts which seemed to be in reaction to my paper. There were no intentions or accusations of any religious participation. The topic is one which I would like to avoid as this "critical appraisal" is "fleshed out" because serotonin deficient thoughts become taboo almost immediately.

Nor did I specifically think that thread was super important to your work!, albeit Maxwell is very relevant to this EU paradigm. Merely advisingthere are some very very astute knowledgeable thinkers giving their time & effort here so approach carefully.

It is relevant to me insofar as my background information was only one paragraph long, and didn't do any of the founders justice. I added a reference to that Maxwell Physical Model thread because it did a much better job. I also direct the readers to Hilton Ratcliffe's book, The Virtue of Heresy for the same reason.

I find the concept of the aether compelling given the overwhelming bearing it has on the work of so many great scientists and ground breaking discoverers.

At this point in my studies, I have not found reason to use the word aether, just as I have not found a reason to use the word matter. I have created a thread on the Mad Ideas forum with respect to my interpretation of mass vs. matter.

Anyway except for you two,it seems my first simple post/thread was a...FAIL!

hardly. It's just that a lot of the posters jump between threads, but all seem to be focusing on the same directions. This website is a huge relief to me and your thoughts are far from failure.

[Corpuscles]

KickLa

Immediately I saw the EU concept, it concept rang true and consistent with my prior thinking so it interests me greatly. However I have not yet devoted sufficient time yet to completely grasp the detailed justification (possibly very valid) to replace aspects of conventional theory.

My questions were merely a simple introduction for some "big picture" issues that I expect would ought have been thoroughly established with logic and supporting demonstratable proof/equations etc ... if they differ?

So in a naive attempt to answer my own queries... just on hunch

It would appear to me that Newtons Gravitaion equation and Coulombs Law might easily be inter changeable/ related at Coulombs constant and Gravity constant to: charge and mass of planets may equate ...to the same Force?

IF EU claims electrical force is the most responsible? As I say it seems that EU theory does? maintain conventional gravity explaination,and rather (as I think is correct)that Gravity is an effect interwoven and a reciprocal part of the Electric paradigm?

The spin of Sun planets seems to be MUCH more of an electro magnetic field phenomena, as you describe in book, especially since IMHO conventional dynamo theories for Electric, magnetic planetary fields falls short of an adequate explaination. IMHO aether is ALSO critical but we might discuss that somewhere else later.

The electrical pipe connectors Sun to Earth etc and other electrical influences? I see NOW .....I simply must plough on and read MUCH more of the published theory to get a grasp of any such influences (or alternatives) proposed by founding EU visionaries?

I was just trying to cheat with some answers from the brilliant well read "experts" here!

Again I thank you for your attempts to enlighten and assist. No interwebby "chest beating" or "donger measuring " (ie arguement) was intended in any of my responses.

Having said that,I could have been more upseting critical (since you seek as many as you can to read it) to comment that you start out with such basics like teacher to a child learning A =Apple, B= Ball etc, then jump all over the place ....DNA Galaxies Plasma etc,.... and arrive at an unfleshed out conclusion of Electromass is the whole answer!? Keep going it is a great effort and a credit to you.

Yes others do seem to dot and jump around between issues.I suspect they all have their own hobby horse "current issues" and ultimately we are all looking for the ....Unified Theory of Everything!
Cheers

[Corpuscles]

PS Where I said "the same force",I meant a difference force, ( not saying electric =gravity) but having similiar planetary effect?

I am happy to leave conventional (real) gravity as the "force". I was just interested whether EU replaced it or offered alternative?

[greylion]

PS Where I said "the same force",I meant a difference force, ( not saying electric =gravity) but having similiar planetary effect?
I am happy to leave conventional (real) gravity as the "force". I was just interested whether EU replaced it or offered alternative?

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

When I first found holoscience.com, I read through all the articles listed here:

http://www.holoscience.com/news/news.htm
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php

Then I ordered the (paper) books.

[MGmirkin]

Questions
1. Does the EU /ES model maintain or base the location of orbit and structure of the solar system on traditional gravity? or does it supersede this weak force with other stronger electro magnetic forces?

2. Does EU/ES tend to implicate that the large extended planets magnetoshphere domains organise the orbits and rotational aspects?

3. Ok the Universal Birkland currents create magnetic fields , Z pinch define star location, but can someone try to simply describe the electric "motortype" rotational aspect of our sun for me?

4. If there is connector pipes from Sun to Earth...is that the neagtive ions being attracted to Earths ionoshphere or some other reason? What implictions forthe ordering of solar system and rotations etc?

Any help will be very gratefully appreciated THANK YOU !

Well, it seems some folks have tried to be helpful, though have perhaps caused some confusion as well.

With regard to gravity. Thornhill proposes a specific conceptual model to EXPLAIN gravity based upon electrical structures at the atomic, fundamental particle [and sub-fundamental particle], which sum over the volume of a body to produce the weak gravitational force.

I'm in the process of summarizing a mashup of 4 of Thornhill's Holoscience articles. When properly sliced, diced and re-arranged it will spell out exactly what's been said by Thornhill.

But, for now, let me point you to Thornhill's articles so you can read everything in the original context.

In reverse chronological order (latest first):

(Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s

(Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

(A Real 'Theory of Everything')
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df

(Antigravity?)
http://www.holoscience.com/news/antigravity.html

Between the 4 of them, you should be able to get a feel for what Thornhill is saying.

The themes I've identified (and will eventually use as section headers in some form or another) include:

Resonant Systems of Charge ("Fundamental" particles like electrons, protons, Neutrons may have structure. If so, proposal of "subtrons" a la Sansbury. Tiny, nearly massless charged particle [+] & [-]. The subtron charges within a "fundamental" particle sum to the sign on that particle.)

Speed Limits? -- Subtrons (If there is sub-structure to the fundamental particles, the "subtrons" would need to communicate faster than the speed of light by several times.)

Speed Limits? -- The Universe (It is stated that a coherent universe require signaling that is considerably faster than the speed of light if it is to remain coherent.)

What is Mass? (Mass is the resistance of a body to an accelerating force.)

Standard Model Confused About Mass. (The standard model only DESCRIBES gravity mathematically, but does not EXPLAIN how it arises to begin with.)

Similarities Between Electrical & Gravitational Forces.

Mass and Gravity are Inherently Electrical in Nature

Resonant Systems of Charge -- Distortion into Electric Dipole

Planets and Ponderable Bodies in Space May Act Like Electrets. (Ponderable bodies may be internally charge polarized, causing a radial internal electric field.)

Electric Dipoles – Free to Rotate / Line Up to Produce Gravity (Internal internal radial electric field may serve to radially align all the atomic electric dipoles of ye olde ponderable body. The infinitely weak dipoles may then sum over the volume of body to the power of gravity.)

Changes in Electric Field – Dipole Distortion, Mass & Force of Gravity Change

Mass is an Electrical Variable – Gravity is Not a Constant (If mass of objects can change based upon internal charge polarization, then G may not be as "constant" as is currently believed.)

Electrical Orbital Stabilization & Capture (If mass is an electrical variable, then discharges between ponderable bodies may give a means of orbital stabilization & circularization and/or capture. If Venus was once the "great comet" of myth, and is still discharging [based on the observation of cometary characteristics: "stringy things" in its magnetotail] that might just explain why it's on the most circularized orbit!)

Mass Cannot Tell us About Composition (If mass is an electrical variable, then it may be a poor indicator of composition of ponderable bodies in space.)

“Anomalous” Acceleration / Deceleration in an Electric Solar System (Probes behave badly while leaving the solar system. Other probes behave oddly when trying to get a gravity boost after return from elsewhere in the solar system. Comets experience "anomalous accelerations" when discharging? If the gravitational mass is an electrical variable based upon internal charge polarization, these anomalies may find an answer.)

Electrical vs. Gravitational Field Strengths

Inertial Mass – A Measure of the Degree to Which Particles Distort Rather than Accelerate. (Make a big ball of jello. Try pushing it. Its resistance to to an accelerating force springs at least in part if not completely from its ability to deform rather than actually move in the direction of the force. A rock is far denser and less deformable, thus us easier to accelerate. Jello is like the proton [big, not quite as dense and easier to deform]. A pebble is like the electron [smaller, slightly denser and harder to deform thus better at acceleration]. That's just my own poor analogy. In this case the distortion may be an elongation in direction of the force being applied, as opposed to in a direction perpendicular to the force. But I'd probably need to clarify on that one before saying anything more concrete.)

Speed Limits? -- Speed of Light vs Speed of Gravity (Thornhill suggests light is a slower transverse wave whereas gravity is a faster longitudinal wave through the aether.)

What is the Aether? (Thornhill suggests a "sea of neutrinos.")

Implications for the Podkletnov Rotating Superconducting Disk Experiment.

“Cold” Fusion? (He really only makes one brief statement about this, noting that fusion may be more likely via resonant interactions rather than the brute force approach.)

----------

Others on the forum may have their own opinions. They're free to them. I'm just summarizing and pointing to what has been specifically written by Thornhill on the subject. So, if you want to see what the "EU" has to say on the various issues, check out the primary sources.

Mainly Wal Thornhill's Holoscience.com and Don Scott's Electric-Cosmos.org

TPODs are decent enough, as well. Though they occasionally wander a bit further afield into a few more speculative areas. Though, that's not to say the topic in general isn't a tiny bit speculative, in lieu of large crowds of academic researchers jumping on the bandwagon and opening wider academic debates on the issue or dedicating probes, telescope time, etc. to look for data that would affirm or refute.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

Questions
1. Does the EU /ES model maintain or base the location of orbit and structure of the solar system on traditional gravity? or does it supersede this weak force with other stronger electro magnetic forces?

2. Does EU/ES tend to implicate that the large extended planets magnetoshphere domains organise the orbits and rotational aspects?

3. Ok the Universal Birkland currents create magnetic fields , Z pinch define star location, but can someone try to simply describe the electric "motortype" rotational aspect of our sun for me?

4. If there is connector pipes from Sun to Earth...is that the neagtive ions being attracted to Earths ionoshphere or some other reason? What implictions forthe ordering of solar system and rotations etc?

Any help will be very gratefully appreciated THANK YOU !

Don't know if the above answered your questions, so I'll be brief but more specific.

1) Thornhill states that gravity *is* generally the operating force in the solar system insofar as it describes the orbits of the planets. However, Thornhill also states that current conceptions of gravity are purely a mathematical description. A post hoc "description," if you will, of the effect of "gravity" on "mass." However, he asserts that they do not actually EXPLAIN what gives rise to "mass" in the first place, and often make the mistake of equating a quantity of mass with a quantity of matter, and violate conservation laws in the process (saying that "matter" can essentially be created or destroyed, when in fact "mass" is being converted into "energy," but the "matter" still exists).

Thornhill attempts to give a physical explanation for "mass" and to explain how it works. As well the concepts of gravity & light. As well the relative speeds of gravity and light (and why they should be different). In Thornhill's model charges pay the central role, and "gravity" is something of a "ghost in the machine," an effect of how charges interact, conglomerate, distort in their orbits, align and the weak force due to the distortion is summed over a volume to generate the force we perceive as gravity.

2) Yes and maybe{?}. Thornhill posits that if the mass of a body is due in some large part to its internal charge polarization, thus its internal radial electric field, thus the alignment of distorted atoms forming electric dipoles, then A) the gravitational constant may not be so constant B) changes to the internal charge polarization due to the addition or subtraction of charge may affect the apparent mass / gravity of the body due to the change in the distortion and alignment of atomic electric dipoles on account of changes to said field.

In this case, if a planet discharges to the solar wind, receives a large unbalanced charge from the solar wind, or discharges to another planet, its mass may change and its orbit may also ever so slightly change. In the case of charge exchange between planets, this may serve to rapidly circularize / stabilize orbits. The inner planet may lose some charge, reduce in mass slightly and its orbit shrink slightly while the outer planet receives some charge, may increase in apparent mass slightly and its orbit increase ever so slightly in response.

Venus has been implicated (on the mythological side of the fence, which I tend to discuss separately, if much at all) as the "Great Comet" of legend. The stuff of the myth-making epoch. If Venus has been undergoing a cometary discharge for a long period, which continues slightly to this day, then that may well explain its extremely circularized orbit when compared to other bodies in the solar system.

3) I'm not clear on this question... Perhaps see Faraday motor? Homopolar Motor / Generator?

4) Not sure. I recall that Thornhill may have at some pointed note that large CMEs / solar flares impacting Earth could potentially alter its rotation ever so slightly and the effect should be looked for. I don't recall a specific reference though. Also don't know whether it was suggested to be through a Faraday Disk / Homopolar Motor type effect or due to changes in internal charge polarization leading to changes in internal electric field strength, etc. etc. result in change in apparent mass (thus change in rotation). Also, don't know whether orbit would be changed ever so slightly or not?

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin