Electric Solar System ... Really?!?

[RayTomes]

When I see some of the electrically made pictures that look like spiral galaxies, and understand that galactic rotation does not properly fit a gravitational explanation, I think that there might be something in this Electric Universe stuff. Also, people here are more friendly and open minded than places like BAUT, where I am banned

However the behaviour of the solar system (at least as regards planets, moons and asteroids) is so obviously fully explained by gravitation alone that I wonder what would cause someone to claim that there are electric forces at work.

The motion of the planets is known to very high precision and fits with gravitational calculations giving a single solution for the mass of each planet and moon etc, and with clear motions that can be calculated with high precision for thousands and even millions of years. The residuals are very small and are consistent with observational errors. This is in marked contrast to the situation with galaxies.

If there were electric forces in the solar system, am I right in saying that this would mean that planets would have some significant non-zero charges? If so, then you cannot get the planets orbits to work as they do. Does anyone disagree with this?

Of course I am well aware that the Sun has a lot of electrical stuff going on, and that it continually pours out charge particles, but it must very rapidly move back to neutral charge again. The solar wind must contain equal numbers of + and - charges. The planets also may have electrical activity, as the Earth has thunderstorms etc, but its charge must be effectively zero on average. Do proponents of the Electric Universe agree with this?

[jjohnson]

Hi, Ray,

To answer your paragraph of questions, yes to there being electric forces, yes, and no. The solar system obviously is electrified in many complex ways, and much is charged, as well, naturally. There may be two forces or fields at work in "simple" gravity, in at least one interesting theory.

A delightful, contrary theorist in the mathematics of physics, whom several of us have been reading recently (with a weather eye out, of course), is Miles Mathis. Most recently he has developed his Unified Fields theory which attempts to show that the E/M field and the gravity field are both buried in Newton's gravitational equations and Maxwell's equations, with G being a scaling constant.

For more, see his papers, Where Are the B-Photons?, Unified Fields in Disguise, The Unified Field Theory, The Moon Gives Up A Secret, The Solution To Tides 1 and 2, A Recalculation of the Roche Limit, What is G?, and The Cause of Axial Tilt, 1 and 2. His is a very original slant on how the gravity and E/M fields work in opposition in orbital relations, and you might have fun with his elegantly simple math. He covers more than just orbital mechanics, of course. Tell us what you think, if you haven't read his papers yet. Plausible? Consistent? Otherwise? I like to hear others' takes on stuff I find of interest.

http://www.milesmathis.com

Cheers!

Jim

[StevenO]

Hi Ray,

Welcome to Thunderbolts. You will find that this is a place where alternative interpretations and open discussion is actually welcomed and encouraged. And yes, we all had our experiences with BAUT.

As JJ has pointed out Miles Mathis has revealed that the electric field is only a modulation of a base charge field of photons emitted by all matter. We are finding more and more clues for charge fields at work that explain a.o.:

- the equal optical size of the sun and moon
- the source of the tides
- the stability of the planetary orbits
- the size of the planetary orbits (Bode's law)
- the axial tilt and nutation of the planets
- how to calculate a magnetopause

and many more

However the behaviour of the solar system (at least as regards planets, moons and asteroids) is so obviously fully explained by gravitation alone that I wonder what would cause someone to claim that there are electric forces at work.

The motion of the planets is known to very high precision and fits with gravitational calculations giving a single solution for the mass of each planet and moon etc, and with clear motions that can be calculated with high precision for thousands and even millions of years. The residuals are very small and are consistent with observational errors.

I think you have been subjected to too much mainstream propaganda, Ray. There are immense holes in the gravitation only model of the solar system, biggest problem being that it is not self-correcting and that gravitational fields cannot induce tangential velocity. So all planets should have been mysteriously send into their orbits at exactly the right angle and speeds and even then all simulations become unstable after a while. The repulsive charge fields are essential for a stable and deterministic solar system.

If there were electric forces in the solar system, am I right in saying that this would mean that planets would have some significant non-zero charges? If so, then you cannot get the planets orbits to work as they do. Does anyone disagree with this?

I agree, it makes no sense to calculate orbits for the planets based on electric potential. The basic mechanism is different: all matter emits a charge field consisting of real photons with real mass. The field is repulsive and opposed to the gravitational field. Electric charges are electrons dodging this charge field relatively better than protons. Neutrons don't emit this field. The sofar uncounted mass of these charge fields explains the need for dark matter and other imaginary stuff in cosmological calculations.

Of course I am well aware that the Sun has a lot of electrical stuff going on, and that it continually pours out charge particles, but it must very rapidly move back to neutral charge again. The solar wind must contain equal numbers of + and - charges. The planets also may have electrical activity, as the Earth has thunderstorms etc, but its charge must be effectively zero on average. Do proponents of the Electric Universe agree with this?

The smaller a body the greater the relative repulsion of the charge field. Strong example is comets interacting with the solar wind. The charge field at the earth is only about 0.1% of the strength of gravity but the Moon's field is about 110x stronger (relatively). That explains the influence of the moon on e.g. the tides and human cycles. The tides are mainly caused by the moon's charge field slightly pushing on the Earth's oceans.

[junglelord]

all matter emits a charge field consisting of real photons with real mass. The field is repulsive and opposed to the gravitational field.

I found out last night that Bucky Fuller said the same thing, years before Miles.
How cool is that Steven?

[StevenO]

all matter emits a charge field consisting of real photons with real mass. The field is repulsive and opposed to the gravitational field.

I found out last night that Bucky Fuller said the same thing, years before Miles.
How cool is that Steven?

That's indeed very cool. I really like that. Could you show me where he did that? Miles said that Tesla was already aware of that (and probably had solid proof of it) but that he was too much an engineer and not a theorist.

[RayTomes]

To answer your paragraph of questions, yes to there being electric forces, yes, and no. The solar system obviously is electrified in many complex ways, and much is charged, as well, naturally. There may be two forces or fields at work in "simple" gravity, in at least one interesting theory.

A delightful, contrary theorist in the mathematics of physics, whom several of us have been reading recently (with a weather eye out, of course), is Miles Mathis.
...

Jim, thanks for your kind reply. I have seen reference to Miles Mathis in the forum here and will give his stuff a look over.

But as regards planets and charge, I maintain that even the tiniest charge on planets would make their orbits very different to what they are observed to be.

Welcome to Thunderbolts. You will find that this is a place where alternative interpretations and open discussion is actually welcomed and encouraged. And yes, we all had our experiences with BAUT.

As JJ has pointed out Miles Mathis has revealed that the electric field is only a modulation of a base charge field of photons emitted by all matter. We are finding more and more clues for charge fields at work that explain a.o.:

- the equal optical size of the sun and moon

But there are many moons around many planets, and they don't all have equal optical sizes!

- the source of the tides
- the stability of the planetary orbits
- the size of the planetary orbits (Bode's law)
- the axial tilt and nutation of the planets
- how to calculate a magnetopause

and many more

I have my own version of Bode's law. It can be seen at http://ray.tomes.biz/rt113.htm
These waves are part of a universal set of harmonically related wave lengths and periods.

...
I think you have been subjected to too much mainstream propaganda, Ray. There are immense holes in the gravitation only model of the solar system, biggest problem being that it is not self-correcting and that gravitational fields cannot induce tangential velocity. So all planets should have been mysteriously send into their orbits at exactly the right angle and speeds and even then all simulations become unstable after a while. The repulsive charge fields are essential for a stable and deterministic solar system.

OK, let us separate two issues - solar system creation and solar system dynamics.
1. Solar system creation: Agreed that standard theory is not that hot here. IMO the planets formed where they are because of wave structures. I will start a new thread on this at some time and blow your socks off with some of the data.
2. Solar system dynamics: Standard gravitational theory (Newton as amended by Einstein) gives a very accurate account of the motion of all major bodies (leave aside comets and very small bodies where the solar wind or such forces may be relevant). The accuracy is something like 0.1 second of arc accuracy. This fact alone means that your following statement about charge being 0.1% of gravity or thereabouts cannot possibly be correct (more to follow).

...
I agree, it makes no sense to calculate orbits for the planets based on electric potential. The basic mechanism is different: all matter emits a charge field consisting of real photons with real mass. The field is repulsive and opposed to the gravitational field. Electric charges are electrons dodging this charge field relatively better than protons. Neutrons don't emit this field. The sofar uncounted mass of these charge fields explains the need for dark matter and other imaginary stuff in cosmological calculations.

Hang on a mo ... does this charge field affect positively and negatively charged in an opposite manner (as regards attraction and repulsion)?

...
The smaller a body the greater the relative repulsion of the charge field. Strong example is comets interacting with the solar wind. The charge field at the earth is only about 0.1% of the strength of gravity but the Moon's field is about 110x stronger (relatively). That explains the influence of the moon on e.g. the tides and human cycles. The tides are mainly caused by the moon's charge field slightly pushing on the Earth's oceans.

But if you believe that gravity exists, then the tides are already explained by that. The tidal force is a result of a solid (or nearly so) body sitting in a field that changes as 1/r^2. The different parts of the body experience different forces that cause stretching and compression in different directions.

[redeye]

The tides are mainly caused by the moon's charge field slightly pushing on the Earth's oceans

Why does this interaction only effect bodies of water? Why doesn't my hair-do get messed up? How does the moon pull millions of gallons of water but has no discernible effect on anything else? Is there a tidal effect on clouds?

Of course I am well aware that the Sun has a lot of electrical stuff going on, and that it continually pours out charge particles, but it must very rapidly move back to neutral charge again. The solar wind must contain equal numbers of + and - charges. The planets also may have electrical activity, as the Earth has thunderstorms etc, but its charge must be effectively zero on average. Do proponents of the Electric Universe agree with this?

Isn't the heliosphere simply the debye sheath of the Sun? The Earth's charge can only be calculated relative to another body (of charge) i.e. the Earth's charge is significantly less than the heliosphere (and therefore the Sun) as electrical charge is constantly pouring into the poles of the Earth?

Cheers!

[RayTomes]

(regarding tides)

Why does this interaction only effect bodies of water? Why doesn't my hair-do get messed up? How does the moon pull millions of gallons of water but has no discernible effect on anything else? Is there a tidal effect on clouds?

The tidal effect does not preferentially act on anything. However the solid body of the Earth does not distort under tidal forces in the same way that a sphere of water would. That is why the oceans move relative to the "solid" body of the Earth.

If you do not understand the conventional understanding of tidal effects, then any attempt to explain tidal forces a new way is doomed to failure. I suggest looking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_forces

Isn't the heliosphere simply the debye sheath of the Sun? The Earth's charge can only be calculated relative to another body (of charge) i.e. the Earth's charge is significantly less than the heliosphere (and therefore the Sun) as electrical charge is constantly pouring into the poles of the Earth?

No, charge is not relative to other charges. Charge is an excess of positive or negative particles. If you have two alike charged bodies then they repel each other, the charge doesn't just get ignored because it is the same.

[jjohnson]

Hi, Ray,
I hope you've gotten a chance to read some of Mathis's work on gravity and how Newton's equations (which we conventionally call gravity) implicitly contain both the gravity field and the charge field of the body (bodies, actually), which propagate at different falloff rates. This last factor is what is especially interesting to me, as it is the 1/r^4 constant of Miles's B-field (E/M or charge) which provides the modulation up close and which decreases in influence much faster than gravity, with distance.

I have read quickly through your pages on harmonics at solar system and atomic scales. I didn't get out my Handbook to look at the math in the atomic weights, etc., but you paint an interesting exercise in harmonics. I am not a fan of numerology, and a lot of theory is based on what I call 'pretty' or elegant mathematics, but nonetheless mathematics is supposed to be our assistant in describing observed phenomena, so I can't be dismissive of your ideas. I wonder what perturbs some of the neat harmonic relationships when they fail to materialize correctly or absolutely, such as, why isn't Mars very close to its supposed null position in space. In the case of planets with pronouncedly elliptical orbits, what do your harmonics predict - the major axis or the average orbital distance summed over the entire orbit? Why is your fine constant value slightly different from the commonly accepted value? (I don't have a problem with that except I'd like to know why there may be two different answers to a "constant". That, by definition, says it is not a constant. In fact, if it changes with a change of condition, such as at high energy level measurements, how can it be called a constant? Even the speed of light is a variable - depending on the value of c in whatever medium it finds itself at the moment! c in glass is not c in the "aether" or vacuum.

A more fundamental question has to do with gravity waves or fluctuations - disturbances in the strength or intensity of the acceleration due to gravity. Without changing the mass, how is a gravity wave function generated? Do you postulate that the density of the sun is being changed by its expanding and contracting at some fundamental frequency (its breathing mode, so-called? What mechanism is there to drive this expansion and contraction of a body with so much inertial mass? That is not a trite force application, and for how long has work been expended in keeping this up? (I don't see the sun as a whole being elastic enough to keep this vibration going indefinitely without the application of some external force. It consists of a lossy medium, highly bound by electromagnetic forces created by currents fed by (according to EU thinking) our arm's local Birkeland current.) Fundamentals and their harmonics are often dependent on outside factor for their formation. Would a high mass stellar system, or a stellar system with a very high density star - white dwarf, for instance - have a different set of orbital harmonics as a result?

Looking forward to having you blow my socks off with your data, if different from that you show in your papers!

Jim

[RayTomes]

...
Looking forward to having you blow my socks off with your data, if different from that you show in your papers!

OK, I am starting another thread on this, see http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2691&p=29098#p29098

[StevenO]

But there are many moons around many planets, and they don't all have equal optical sizes!

The moon and sun are the same size in the sky seen from the earth. You would have the same if Mars for instance had one moon only. The apparent size of that moon and the sun in the sky seen from Mars would be identical. That is a result of the equilibrium between gravitational and charge field forces.

...
I think you have been subjected to too much mainstream propaganda, Ray. There are immense holes in the gravitation only model of the solar system, biggest problem being that it is not self-correcting and that gravitational fields cannot induce tangential velocity. So all planets should have been mysteriously send into their orbits at exactly the right angle and speeds and even then all simulations become unstable after a while. The repulsive charge fields are essential for a stable and deterministic solar system.

OK, let us separate two issues - solar system creation and solar system dynamics.
1. Solar system creation: Agreed that standard theory is not that hot here. IMO the planets formed where they are because of wave structures. I will start a new thread on this at some time and blow your socks off with some of the data.

It is rather straightforward to calculate that the planets are where they are because of the equilibrium between the Sun's and the planets unified (gravity+charge) fields. At least for Mercury it can be done directly and is done by Miles Mathes here:A Mathematical Explanation of the Orbital Distance of Mercury

2. Solar system dynamics: Standard gravitational theory (Newton as amended by Einstein) gives a very accurate account of the motion of all major bodies (leave aside comets and very small bodies where the solar wind or such forces may be relevant). The accuracy is something like 0.1 second of arc accuracy. This fact alone means that your following statement about charge being 0.1% of gravity or thereabouts cannot possibly be correct (more to follow).

Newtons' gravitational equation is already an expression of a unified field containing both the gravitational and charge field forces, so the 0.1% is if you decompose the Newtonian field.

...
I agree, it makes no sense to calculate orbits for the planets based on electric potential. The basic mechanism is different: all matter emits a charge field consisting of real photons with real mass. The field is repulsive and opposed to the gravitational field. Electric charges are electrons dodging this charge field relatively better than protons. Neutrons don't emit this field. The sofar uncounted mass of these charge fields explains the need for dark matter and other imaginary stuff in cosmological calculations.

Hang on a mo ... does this charge field affect positively and negatively charged in an opposite manner (as regards attraction and repulsion)?

The charge field is always repulsive. A positive charge is just an expression of this charge field while negative charge is electrons dodging this charge field better than protons. They are only apparently attracted to protons. It also explains why they do not "fall" into the nucleus.

...
The smaller a body the greater the relative repulsion of the charge field. Strong example is comets interacting with the solar wind. The charge field at the earth is only about 0.1% of the strength of gravity but the Moon's field is about 110x stronger (relatively). That explains the influence of the moon on e.g. the tides and human cycles. The tides are mainly caused by the moon's charge field slightly pushing on the Earth's oceans.

But if you believe that gravity exists, then the tides are already explained by that. The tidal force is a result of a solid (or nearly so) body sitting in a field that changes as 1/r^2. The different parts of the body experience different forces that cause stretching and compression in different directions.

The conventional explanation for the tides is total nonsense. If you want to know the ins and outs then please read this paper by Miles Mathis: The Trouble with the Tides and then this one: The Solution to the Tides.

[M5k]

If there were electric forces in the solar system, am I right in saying that this would mean that planets would have some significant non-zero charges? If so, then you cannot get the planets orbits to work as they do. Does anyone disagree with this?

Maybe. I have an idea how it could still work, but keep in mind that I'm a computer scientist and not really familiar with astronomy, so this is basically a guess. It's quite possible that I'm doing something horribly wrong.

Anyway, if I recall correctly, electromagetic attraction follows the same inverse square law as gravitational attraction. Thus, it shouldn't be impossible for the forces that objects in the solar system exert on each other to consist of two distinct components, gravity and electromagnetic attraction. As they follow the same distance law, telling the two apart would probably be difficult. Basically, this would mean that the equations for the orbits still work, it's just that we aren't deriving the correct masses for the planets from them. Is this how planetary masses are calculated? If there's a different way (that's better than an estimation based on likely composition of the planet), this hypothesis falls apart, naturally.

In any case, I'm not very invested in that idea, so feel free to poke holes in it. I'm more than willing to consider that both EU and mainstream are wrong, or only partially right.

[nick c]

If there were electric forces in the solar system, am I right in saying that this would mean that planets would have some significant non-zero charges?

The Electric Universe considers most heavenly bodies to be charged to some degree relative to their plasma environments. If a planet or moon is surrounded by a plasmasphere then that is an indication that it is a charged body. Our moon, for example, has little or no plasmasphere or magnetosphere which is an indication of its' being in electrical equilibrium with its' plasma environment.

If so, then you cannot get the planets orbits to work as they do. Does anyone disagree with this?

Yes, I disagree. The key is that the charged planets are moving in a rarified plasma. A charged body in a plasma will form a double layer, analagous to a cell wall, which serves to isolate the planets' plasmasphere, and thereby its' charge, from the surrounding solar plasma. Under these conditions, the planets would be expected to conform to Newtonian dynamics (though there are some anomalies.) Part of the reason that we don't see more spectacular electrical effects from the planets, is that their orbits are close to circular (ellipses of low eccentricity.) Therefore, the charged body is not exposed to much change in the degree of electrical stress, ie it has time to adjust. The solar plasma environment varies in intensity with distance from the Sun. Changes in the solar plasma resulting from increases or decreases in the solar wind, CME's, solar output, etc can cause some electrical phenomena such as auroras and climatic effects. But by and large, the near circular orbit tends to minimize electrical interaction between the charged planetary body and the solar plasma. As an illustration, comets, because of their high eccentricity elliptical orbits are exposed to changes in the electrical environment of the solar plasma faster than they can adjust. This puts them under electrical stress, causing the effects of dust and plasma tails, coma, glow discharges, etc. There are numerous anomalies associated with comets, the same could be said of the so called "Pioneer anomaly" which is shown to be not conforming with what is expected from gravitational calculations.
So, observed planetary orbits are not in conflict with Electric Universe theory, which by the way, does not deny the existence of the force of gravity.

Nick

disclaimer: the opinions expressed as well as any errors or omissions, in the above response are soley my own and based on my understanding of the Electric Universe theory

[RayTomes]

... It's quite possible that I'm doing something horribly wrong.

Anyway, if I recall correctly, electromagetic attraction follows the same inverse square law as gravitational attraction. Thus, it shouldn't be impossible for the forces that objects in the solar system exert on each other to consist of two distinct components, gravity and electromagnetic attraction. As they follow the same distance law, telling the two apart would probably be difficult. ...

Hi M5K. Yes, they are both inverse square. But the big difference is that with gravity all bodies attract. With charge, like charges repel and unlike attract. As soon as you have more than two bodies in the solar system with charges then you must get some repulsions as well as attractions. This cannot lead to two components that are in common in all cases.

As an example, say that A is +, B is + and C is - charge. Then A and B will repel while A and C, B and C will attract. So the deduced mass for A B and C will be higher from the later actions, but A and B will be lower for their interaction. This leads to different masses for different pairs according to charges. No such thing happens with the planets masses which are consistent across them all.

Commenting on what Nickc said ...

It is possible that a body could be charged as long as it has an equal balancing charge of plasma around it. There is every likelihood that such situations exist. The voltage at different heights above the earth varies by hundreds of thousands of volts and fluctuates over time. Even a car builds up static, a plane's static could kill you if it wasn't discharged when it lands. Clouds have dancing lightning above them etc.

[RayTomes]

Thanks everyone for replying to my question. I want to make a summary as I see it.

The motion of the planets is able to be calculated to at least 10 decimal place accuracy using only gravitational forces. That means that charge plays virtually no part in the motions. Since gravity is weaker than the charge force by a factor of about 10^40, that means that the net charge of the planets must be zero to at least 1 part in 10^50 (i.e. 10^40 * 10^10 accuracy). Amazingly, the inner planets masses are such that they only contain about 10^50 protons and electrons each. Therefore They cannot be uncharged by as much as a few electrons either way!

So, please don't stroke your cat or we will fly out of orbit!

But seriously, we know that much bigger charges are flying about. However they produce no forces on the planets, so there must always be balancing charges, probably in the form of plasma from the Sun, that is always hanging around to exactly balance the charge of each planet!

Is that a correct deduction?