Newton's law

[Roshi]

What could be said about EU, in very few words, to capture the interest of someone? Someone intersted in science in general, watching science documentaries, but new to EU?

What I said: "There is this theory that does not need dark matter to keep the Universe toghether, because it takes into account electromagnetic forces in space" and pointed them to the EU youtube channel. Told him about the pioneers: Birkeland, Alfven.
The fact that the current theory does not take into account EM in space was a surprise to the person I was speaking, in a sense of "why are those forces even needed?".

I could not explain how does taking into account EM forces influence what we see in the solar system. I think this is the main problem: our immediate surroundings seem to be easily explained by gravity (mostly Newton). Why is EU even needed?

Well, I have a problem with Newton's law: if you use the law to calculate a planet's mass, but first consider the law to be true to explain the motion of that planet or it's satellites.
Meaning: this law is true, we now calculate the mass, mass is exactly what is needed for the law to be true, law is proven. I kind of see a problem here, or am I mistaken?

[nick c]

There is nothing wrong with Newton's laws of Motion. The problem lies with the observed fact that certain galactic motions do not obey those laws if you consider gravity as the only applicable force.

The electric force is an accepted (by mainstream science) force in nature. Furthermore it is acknowledged that the electric force is many orders of magnitude more powerful than the force of gravity.

Continuing with that train of thought, it is also acknowledged that almost all of the observable matter in the cosmos exists in a plasma state. Plasmas are an electrical phenomenon and it is fair to say that the Universe is mostly plasma.

That being said, why wouldn't a cosmologist when confronted with an anomaly (galactic motions do not conform to gravitational expectations) look toward the behaviors of plasmas for an explanation? Instead, they invent an invisible and undetectable form of matter which can be placed wherever needed, and whose only reason for existence is to salvage the gravity only paradigm. Dark Matter is an ad hoc attempt to salvage a theory which has been effectively falsified by observations.

The anomalies associated with galactic motions (and many other celestial phenomena) can be explained as plasma processes.

Hannes Alfven (1970 Nobel Prize in Physics) demonstrated that laboratory plasma studies can shed light on many cosmic phenomena as there is a degree of scalability to plasma processes.

see:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A ... A/abstract

Galactic forms can and have been duplicated in plasma lab experiments since W. H, Bostick did that in the 1950's.
see:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... ?f=5&t=546

[Roshi]

Thank you
I guess my real question is: how does EU explain the solar system? Or gravity?
I understand there are problems with stars and planets forming just because of gravity. But what does EU say for our already formed solar system?

[Roshi]

And, about bodies attracting each other, aka "gravity", aka "the mathematical curvature of a concept", that produces a real force.

This force must be an effect of something else.

[nick c]

But what does EU say for our already formed solar system?

The EU describes our already formed solar system as the residue of a past electrical arrangement. I believe that is a paraphrase of Hannes Alfven.
Anyway, there is no mathematical justification for the present solar system being some billions of years old and held together solely by gravitational forces. In a system of 3 or more bodies slight perturbations between the members of the system accumulate over long periods of time to make the system chaotic. That is, it reaches a point where the motions of the member bodies becomes unpredictable.

It's called the N-body problem:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/n-bodies

The N-body problem is one of the most famous, and easily stated, problems in mathematical physics: find exact solutions to point masses moving under their mutual Newtonian gravitational forces (i.e. the inverse-square law). For N=2 the complete set of solutions is straightforward and has been known for a long time -- each body moves in a conic section (circle, ellipse, parabola or hyperbola) around the center of mass. In fact, Kepler found the solution even before Newton came up with the problem! But let N=3 and chaos breaks loose, quite literally.

[Aardwolf]

Orbits can only be stable when there are attractive and repulsive forces applied. Gravity is attractive only hence Newtows laws are essentially false and can only be used for approximation.

More likely orbits actually operate within an electromagnetic field similar to the effect in link below;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHrBhgwq__Q

[Roshi]

Interesting. I remember some mention in a Thunderbolts video about this N body instability, and the fact that order in the solar system is maintained by electromagnetic fields.

Newtons law and Coulomb's law are very simillar. This surely is not coincidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27 ... ravitation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law

The force is along the straight line joining the two charges. If the charges have the same sign, the electrostatic force between them is repulsive; if they have different signs, the force between them is attractive.

If Earth attracts objects already on it's surface, does it mean those objects have different sign of charge in relation to Earth, if we consider Coulomb's force instead of Newton's?

There is more to this than this simple way Coulomb's law is presented. Also I can't find any satisfactory explanation about "positive" and "negative" charges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge