Talking Points on the Electric Sun

[Goldminer]

Anyway, the potential energy is traded off to kinetic energy as the satellite accelerates and decelerates through out its orbit, all the while being in free fall (weightless), and never experiencing the forces of linear acceleration. How does it do that?

In order to explain gravity, charge and all things E/M, we must inevitably concede to the existence of a material quantum particle field. There is, quite literally, no choice in this matter.

No choice in this matter, that is, according to you. You have limited your thinking.

Thus we can now visualise our reality as existing within this field of tiny particles that is the cause and medium of all force fields. While standing on Earth we are subject to the collisional conditions locally prevailing; that is, a net push towards the centre of the Earth by the effect of gravity. If we move up or sideways, and especially if we accelerate, there is a change of collisional effects from the field: we experience inertia. Free falling in the gravity field is the same as not moving against the field. If you were to attempt to steer sideways whilst in free fall, inertia would reappear. If you accelerate downwards faster than gravity, there would again be inertia.

So far you have merely described what we all think we know happens according to our senses, and arbitrarily attributed it to your "push" "field of tiny particles." Push gravity has its own can of worms. I don't buy it, not that that matters in the scheme.

Since electrostatic charge must be an emission and since any particle field movement into a celestial body must be equaled by an outward movement, it stands to reason that there must be a net outward emission of "charge" from all and any body that exists in the quantum vacuum field.

Adding "must" to you unqualified statements certainly increases the scientific value of everything you state!

In other words all bodies are emitting an outward moving field of the same nature as the net inward effect of gravity - you may think of it as upward gravity if that helps. We are taught that an orbit is achieved by running away from gravity, by the process of continually changing direction - "falling without hitting the ground".

One may defy gravity without changing direction relative the surface of the Earth, merely by accelerating precisely opposite the gravity vector.

"We are taught" as in "you?" I was taught that Inertia causes unaccelerated matter to proceed in a linear manner; it is the balance of momentum vs. the gravitational acceleration, however it is produced, that results in an orbit.

But as has been pointed out many times on this forum, gravity is constant, or at the very least, it is very fast.

I don't follow your thoughts here. They seem garbled! Gravitational acceleration diminishes as the inverse square of the distance from the surface of the mass in line with the center of mass. It is not constant in this sense. It acts instantaneously since the field exists all around the mass. Any other mass occupying a place in the field will experience the acceleration already potentially there at that distance from the mass under investigation.

Changing direction in space whilst inside a significant gravity well would be utterly hopeless as a strategy to avoid the push of gravity.

Well, yes, changing direction will be useless without an acceleration. Nothing Earth shaking about that statement.

However, there is also an emitted field moving outward in opposition to the downward/inward push of gravity.

According to yours and some others speculations.

If an orbiter were to remain stationary relative to the planet they would be pushed inward by the effect of gravity.

Pushed or pulled, doesn't matter . . . may or may not fall . . . Geostationary orbits don't fall to Earth!

But, since the push of gravity is constant at all points through the orbit,

This is only true in circular orbits, not true in elliptical orbits.

. . . if an orbiter can travel around the planet at a given velocity appropriate to the distance from the planet, then they may encounter sufficient outward pushing force to balance the inward push of gravity. At that balance point an object in effectively weightless, since there is no net gravity field. Also, at that point and at that velocity in those prevailing field conditions there is no inertial effect to the orbit. Orbits are a balance of gravity and "charge".

I hate to be so blunt with you here Micheal, but frankly you are just using up band width. The "outward pushing force" is just the instantaneous inertial resistance to the instantaneous action of gravity (however it is produced) on the linear propensity of mass to proceed in a linear manner; to be as redundant and tedious as your statements.

One may also wish to muse on an area of space just beyond the bulk of the atmosphere - namely the ionosphere or ionisation "layer". One may also look to an object such as Saturn, where the "electrical" activity of the Saturnian system does not appear to correlate to its distance from the Sun. Saturn, and all planetary bodies, are producing their own charge field. But as charge fields, ionospheres and "electrical" activity goes, the king of the hill by a wide margin, is the Sun. The Sun doesn't need to be fed by "currents", its immense mass contains a vast quantity of charge and photon emitters confined in close proximity by gravity. Any nuclear reactions or Birkeland currents are not cause they are effect. A star shines simply because it is so massive.

Michael

Your last paragraph here is definitely, IMHO, material for the New Insights and Mad Ideas thread.

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

what i was getting at is that this is standard model, isn't it?

No, I am suggesting that photon emission, due to charge emitter proximity is the culprit. So that's charge/photon emitter massive

can charge, producing effects that we see, be supported by a mathematical model?

From conventional "wisdom" we are told that Electrons are associated with: charge, electromagnetic fields, photon emission. But strangely, none of these phenomena have anything to do with the others - a gun fires a bullet, makes a loud noise, and a small flash and smoke from the barrel - but the same conventional logic we should assume that bullet, noise, flash and smoke are completed unrelated phenomena.

or were you inferring that charge emitting could be powered by quantum phield?

Yep. The quantum field creates the effect of gravity (see Nicolas Fatio and Le Sage). The "reflection"/deflection/re-emission of those gravity quantum particles creates the effect of charge around electrons and protons. In addition, electrons actually absorb the quantum particles. Normally, they emit them at the same rate that they absorb them. But if an electron is in a particular position whereby it is being struck by the charge emissions of many other electrons, it will be absorbing charge particles more quickly than it can emit them. So the electron will be getting more massive, but eventually the electron is able, for some reason, to emit all of its excess mass in one single emission: it emits a photon.

problems i see are how did the sun become so big.?

Marklund convection, topped off with gravity.

the sun ejects tons of matter, so if it is self-contained, mass must be decreasing.

Perhaps the Sun is shrinking, perhaps gravitational accretion is a quantum level effect (the growing planets guys would be pleased). I don't know how much mass goes into the Sun on an average week day, perhaps it is more, less or the same as the amount lost by emission/ejection.

Michael

[mjv1121]

Goldminer,

So . . . your "point of emission" that is at absolute rest has no meaning and no effect because eventually it will be located in intergalactic space; and all matter and light waves and anything else you can think of will have left it far behind. Meanwhile, right now that "point of emission" above the tower, where the jet occupied a while back, is now marking new territory continuously as the world turns, with or without any new jets that may fly by.

Do you think/believe that the point of emission of a photon will ever move, ever in the entire infinity of time and space?.

Either you are deluded or you have entirely missed my point, so I will try again.

Imagine a electron travelling through space in a straight line. Every now and then it emits a photon (we shall imagine for the purposes of this explanation that the electron is on this occasion able to emit photons without any external influence). If you were able to construct a framework around the infinity of space (an oxymoron admittedly, but bear with me) then you could determine the co-ordinate positions of each of the photon's point of emission. The electron moves on, the photons travel away at c, galaxies and galaxy clusters move, but those co-ordinate positions exist in absolute space and will never change. So the photons are travelling at c relative to their point of emission.

There is nothing at those points to mark the event of emission, the photon does not leave a message saying "I woz ere", it is just a coordinate position. In reality, the process of of marking and determining the absolute coordinate locations for the point of emission of a photon are considerable, and as such, as you say, has no meaning. However, regardless of the practical severity of such an endeavour, the fact remains that photons travel at c relative to their point of emission and that point exist in absolute space and not relative the the arbitrary inertial frame of reference of an observer.

Michael

[mjv1121]

Goldminer,

mjv: In order to explain gravity, charge and all things E/M, we must inevitably concede to the existence of a material quantum particle field. There is, quite literally, no choice in this matter.

No choice in this matter, that is, according to you. You have limited your thinking.

Perhaps you could present another possibility?

Push gravity has its own can of worms. I don't buy it,

Certainly, simple bombardment mechanism has some difficulties. Do you know of an alternative possibility?

Adding "must" to you unqualified statements certainly increases the scientific value of everything you state!

Agreed, I must try to use must less often.

I was taught that Inertia causes unaccelerated matter to proceed in a linear manner; it is the balance of momentum vs. the gravitational acceleration, however it is produced, that results in an orbit.

Would you kindly provide the correct explanation for the mechanism of inertia?

Gravitational acceleration diminishes as the inverse square of the distance from the surface of the mass in line with the centre of mass. It is not constant in this sense. It acts instantaneously since the field exists all around the mass. Any other mass occupying a place in the field will experience the acceleration already potentially there at that distance from the mass under investigation.

When you say "it acts instantaneously", what exactly "acts"? Beyond a rather obvious battle of semantics, and a well know Newtonian description of gravitational effect; what is the cause, the mechanism, of gravity?

Michael

[mjv1121]

Goldminer,

mjv1121 wrote:Changing direction in space whilst inside a significant gravity well would be utterly hopeless as a strategy to avoid the push of gravity.

Well, yes, changing direction will be useless without an acceleration. Nothing Earth shaking about that statement.

Well that's what you say but "I was taught that Inertia causes unaccelerated matter to proceed in a linear manner; it is the balance of momentum vs. the gravitational acceleration, however it is produced, that results in an orbit.".
Of course, changing direction and moving along a curved path is mathematically an acceleration. Although, in an orbit it is an unaccelerated acceleration, that is, the orbiter does not need to apply a force to change direction, nor does the orbiter need to apply a force to prevent itself from falling. There appears to be a balance of forces external to the orbiter.
Also, "gravitational acceleration" is due to a force, maybe you could explain how momentum balances force.

mjv1121 wrote:However, there is also an emitted field moving outward in opposition to the downward/inward push of gravity.

According to yours and some others speculations.

Are you saying that you disagree?

mjv1121 wrote:If an orbiter were to remain stationary relative to the planet they would be pushed inward by the effect of gravity.

Geostationary orbits don't fall to Earth!

Geostationary orbits are not stationary relative to the rotating Earth, they are stationary relative to a particular point on the Earth.

mjv1121 wrote:But, since the push of gravity is constant at all points through the orbit,

This is only true in circular orbits, not true in elliptical orbits.

Constant, as in constantly there and constantly acting - constantly acting instantaneously if you prefer.

mjv1121 wrote: . . . if an orbiter can travel around the planet at a given velocity appropriate to the distance from the planet, then they may encounter sufficient outward pushing force to balance the inward push of gravity. At that balance point an object in effectively weightless, since there is no net gravity field. Also, at that point and at that velocity in those prevailing field conditions there is no inertial effect to the orbit. Orbits are a balance of gravity and "charge".

I hate to be so blunt with you here Michael, but frankly you are just using up band width. The "outward pushing force" is just the instantaneous inertial resistance to the instantaneous action of gravity (however it is produced) on the linear propensity of mass to proceed in a linear manner; to be as redundant and tedious as your statements.

I await the enlightenment of your wisdom, if indeed you have ANY answers, I am eager to learn. And don't worry, I have plenty of "bandwidth", I am sorry for you if yours is limited.

mjv1121 wrote:One may also wish to muse on an area of space just beyond the bulk of the atmosphere - namely the ionosphere or ionisation "layer". One may also look to an object such as Saturn, where the "electrical" activity of the Saturnian system does not appear to correlate to its distance from the Sun. Saturn, and all planetary bodies, are producing their own charge field. But as charge fields, ionospheres and "electrical" activity goes, the king of the hill by a wide margin, is the Sun. The Sun doesn't need to be fed by "currents", its immense mass contains a vast quantity of charge and photon emitters confined in close proximity by gravity. Any nuclear reactions or Birkeland currents are not cause they are effect. A star shines simply because it is so massive.

Your last paragraph here is definitely, IMHO, material for the New Insights and Mad Ideas thread.

Perhaps you're right. Of course I remember now. Stars collapsing from a gravitational accretion disc reach a point of gravitational pressure and begin to fuse hydrogen into helium, thereby releasing lots of "energy" and lots of neutrinos, and it all happens because mass and energy are equivalent; relatively speaking. Then, later on when the star has formed and settled down the "temperature" at the core (the point of lowest inward gravity) is millions of degrees, and this "energy" radiates and convects its way to the atmosphere, which is a few thousand degrees, topped by the upper atmosphere at a couple of million degrees again (I'm not entirely sure where the ionisation layer is, I suppose we shall just have to wonder).

Oh no, wait a minute, that doesn't sound quite right. Perhaps what is actually happening is that interstellar Birkeland currents at a stars' poles are delivering "energy" from "somewhere" else at a rate and in a form sufficient for the star to maintain its tremendous amount of activity. It is not entirely clear where "somewhere" is, but one must presume that there is a lot of stuff there, or not much left. It would be useful if we knew what "electricity" actually was, then maybe we could reinforce this theory. But seeing as no-one is even making an attempt to understand "charge", we are unlikely to make headway.

Now, remind me, which proposal belongs in the "mad ideas" box?

Michael

[kiwi]

check this out ... ( ignore where appropriate:)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... fSbguKh8#!

[kiwi]

ignore where relevant http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 83fSbguKh8#!