Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[Ziggurat]

I'll do even better than that, I'll give you a link to a document that may help you learn this information:

here

It's quite short. A more complete discussion of gravity will have to take place in another thread, let's try to stay on topic here.

This paper is seriously misguided, and makes elementary and fatal mistakes in regards to electromagnetism. For example, the radial dipole example the author envisions is quite obviously wrong. Aside from having no motivation and no evidence, such a configuration would produce no field outside of the earth. That's a direct consequence of Gauss's law, one of the foundations of electromagnetism. And without any field (not just a small field, but zero field), if obviously cannot produce any force.

Plenty of other errors abound within that source, but that one will do for now.

 

[Arthur Mann]

As I and others have described, we generate and manipulate gravity all the time.

I find your descriptions approximately as convincing as descriptions of unicorns or the easter bunny. Any child can describe the easter bunny or a unicorn.

The usual torsion bar test that students use for determining the gravitational constant will work just fine.

These experiments verify that attraction exists in the universe, but, like Newton, they offer no explanation as to the cause and no support for any supposed caused (whether named "gravity" or otherwise).

As a part of the test, ensure that the two test masses are electrically neutral

This is a weak claim, as there is no definitive way to ensure two bodies have exactly equal charge, and in the case of explaining "gravitation" (a minute force by all accounts), a minute difference in charge could and should readily produce attraction between the two objects on the order of what gravitists claim.

Again this is no experimental support of the notion of "gravity", while it does of course clearly demonstrate that attraction exists.

I genuinely don't know what to make of that. You think the laws of physics forbid simulation and manipulation of gravity?

The laws of physics are routinely trotted out by gravitists to explain why they offer no experimental support for their models. They simply state the processes they imagine are impossible to replicate in the lab, and absolve themselves of the burden of proof. It's quite a simple yet effective tactic if your audience lacks critical thinking skills.

 

[sol invictus]

This paper is seriously misguided, and makes elementary and fatal mistakes in regards to electromagnetism. For example, the radial dipole example the author envisions is quite obviously wrong. Aside from having no motivation and no evidence, such a configuration would produce no field outside of the earth. That's a direct consequence of Gauss's law, one of the foundations of electromagnetism. And without any field (not just a small field, but zero field), if obviously cannot produce any force.

Plenty of other errors abound within that source, but that one will do for now.

Stop saying correct things, it's not on topic for this thread.

Now when are you going to link to the posts where Arthur did those calculations - the posts you asserted don't exist?

 

[sol invictus]

gravitists

Poe strikes again...

 

[Tubbythin]

That's the thrust of this claim, yes. Real forces do the work, not ptolemic misunderstandings.

Except you have no sensible definition of a real force.

Predictability does not prove pedagogy. Ptolemy's model correctly predicted the same motions. Gravity, however, does not accurately describe even the bodies in our solar system.

Yes it does. IT does a very good job indeed.

it can not reasonably account for the shape and motion of galaxies without "unobservable" stuff like "black hole" and "dark matter".

Good job then that there are multiple independent pieces of evidence for dark matter.

Gravity can not explain the "pioneer anomaly".

That's true. But the pioneer anomaly is tiny. Less than 1 part in a billion m/s². And the pioneer spacecraft account for a teeny tiny fraction of bodies in the solar sytem/galaxy/universe.

Gravity can only successfully predict objects that are ostensibly "neutral" with respect to one another and their environment.

Not true. In the example I suggested you calculate for two charge bodies it will do an extremely good job of predicting the observed acceleration, down to 1 part in a thousand billion billion in fact.

Even here on the surface of Earth, where all known life exists, the rules of gravitation are routinely overturned by electric and magnetic forces. A refrigerator magnet is a good example.

The rules of gravity are clearly not overturned. If you take the magnet off the fridge it will will fall to the ground. Gravity hasn't disappeared. If there is more than one force acting on a body then the resultant force is the vector sum (dynamics 101), it does not mean the weaker force disappear altogether. If you think it does I suggest you take that course in dynamics 101.

The behavior of plasmas is another, quite striking, example.

Plasmas can do quite interesting things. But the claim that gravity does not effect them would rely on outright rejection of Newton's laws of motion. If you wanna go back to the 15 th century that's fine by me. Just don't expect anyone else to join you there.

Space vehicles reach their destinations through a combination of pre-planning (calculating velocity and trajectory), as well as mid-course corrections guided by remote observations. These vehicles are not "fire and forget", and have little chance of striking their targets without repeated "course corrections".

It is using our understanding of gravity that gets them out of the atmosphere and that does the rest. There may be small corrections but that's hardly surprising when you're trying to plot the course of something over millions of miles.

Couple that with the "pioneer anomaly" and it shows most researchers, while technically skilled and able to build these machines, do not have the faintest clue about the laws governing motion of charged bodies immersed in plasma.

The pioneer anomaly is tiny.

 

[Arthur Mann]

For example, the radial dipole example the author envisions is quite obviously wrong.

It's not an example, it's a statement of fact:

Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.

That claim is sourced:

R. Sansbury, The Common Cause of Gravity and Magnetism, p 1.

Did you also read Sansbury's paper?

Aside from having no motivation and no evidence, such a configuration would produce no field outside of the earth.

I find your claim to be nonsense, arbitrarily asserting without support that such dipoles don't exist in subatomic particles. I think all the particle and nuclear physicists who routinely engage subatomic magnetic dipoles would disagree with you.

That's a direct consequence of Gauss's law, one of the foundations of electromagnetism.

I've already outlined above why your claim is specious, adding that it's a direct consequence of guass law (which it isn't) lends nothing motile to the claim.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Except you have no sensible definition of a real force.

False.

The pioneer anomaly is tiny.

Tiny, yet clearly measurable, and constant, and with no explanation in the context of gravity models, which shouldn't be applied to the solar system in any case, since all bodies in the solar system are charged and all of them are able to interact electrically with each other. That moots "gravity", whether it's real or imagined, whether it's a valid model or a misunderstanding, it is still mooted. This is supported by abundant direct observations and controlled experiments, over a century of experiments with electromagnetic fields and plasmas, in fact.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Since gravity doesn't exist and we can "block" other forces, where's my flying car?

off topic and banal

 

[dasmiller]

Gravity, however, does not accurately describe even the bodies in our solar system.

It does an excellent job of describing the motions of the objects in our solar system.

TT beat me to it, and most of my response duplicates his stuff. But I would like to point out:

Gravity can only successfully predict objects that are ostensibly "neutral" with respect to one another and their environment.

For various reasons, spacecraft sometimes build up substantial static charges. It does not significantly affect their orbits.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Hmm. 14 pages about this amazing alternative to gravity... and not a single piece of quantitative justification. A bigger pile of scientific fail it is difficult to imagine.

I don't find this analysis of yours particularly useful. Feel free to mention specific issues you have with the paper, but in another thread. I only presented it because it was demanded, now let's get back to the topic at hand.

 

[Arthur Mann]

It does an excellent job of describing the motions of the objects in our solar system.

No, it does not, and it can not. It "can not" because the bodies in the solar system are charged bodies able to interact electrically with each other through the plasma in which they're all immersed. This moots "gravity" rules, whether or not "gravity" is even a valid concept. Electromagnetic rules dominate, on every scale and at every distance. That part is not up for debate. For that reason, "gravity" models can not accurately describe the motion of planets in the solar system.

The reason it "does not" is because "gravity" models were used to derive the masses of the planets. These masses are likely wrong, because, as noted above, "gravity" rules simply do not apply to charged bodies in plasma. There is no escape from this fact, until and unless we can figure out a way to violate physical laws or go to another universe with different laws. If the derived masses are wrong, even if gravity models accurately predict the position of planets over time (just like Ptolemy's did), it in no way verifies "gravity" is valid or understood, because the masses used in the formulas are unlikely to be right except by accident.

 

[sol invictus]

I find your claim to be nonsense, arbitrarily asserting without support that such dipoles don't exist in subatomic particles. I think all the particle and nuclear physicists who routinely engage subatomic magnetic dipoles would disagree with you.

I've already outlined above why your claim is specious, adding that it's a direct consequence of guass law (which it isn't) lends nothing motile to the claim.

Electricity and magnetism 101: dipoles do not produce a field that falls off with distance like 1/distance^2. They produce a field that falls off as 1/distance^3. Moreover, a dipole field has an outward radial component over part of the surface, inward over the other part. Satellites would be raining down on our heads if they were held up by a dipole field.

All the above is a consequence of Gauss' law, as Zig says.

Anyway we don't need such fine details to falsify the absurd idea that attraction to the earth is caused by electric forces. If that were true, objects of one charge would be attracted, while objects of another would be repelled. Objects attracted to the earth would repel each other. There would be a huge radial electric field at the earth's surface. Not one of those things happens, therefore the attractive force is not electric.

 

[dasmiller]

Tiny, yet clearly measurable, and constant,

It's not at all clear that it's "constant," and the measurement errors are not tiny with respect to the anomaly, so be careful about "clearly measurable."

and with no explanation in the context of gravity models,

There's no generally-agreed-upon explanation. Many of the potential explanations simply don't involve gravity.

which shouldn't be applied to the solar system in any case, since all bodies in the solar system are charged and all of them are able to interact electrically with each other.

And, yet, their motion does not deviate from newtonian gravity . . .

But, hey, if you have a model that will give us more accurate results, let's see it.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Now, I am asking you to provide the electrical basis and the mathematical formula with which I can calculate my weight?

Let's try not to drift too far from the topic at hand, if you like, you can create another thread somewhere else to discuss that. I've entertained this derailment far too seriously long enough by half, I think. Let's get back to the subject at hand, or remain silent.

 

[Arthur Mann]

It's not at all clear that it's "constant," and the measurement errors are not tiny with respect to the anomaly, so be careful about "clearly measurable."

False, and False.

There's no generally-agreed-upon explanation.

False.

And, yet, their motion does not deviate from newtonian gravity . . .

False.

 

[Tubbythin]

False.

Then give us a rigorous definition.

Tiny, yet clearly measurable, and constant, and with no explanation in the context of gravity models, which shouldn't be applied to the solar system in any case,

Of course they should. They enable us to put satellites in to space, understand the motions of moons, and planets, apples, footballs, the brides bouqet, that led block I just knocked off the table...

since all bodies in the solar system are charged and all of them are able to interact electrically with each other.

Except forces add vectorially. And when one force dominates over all the others then the others can be ignored. That is the case with gravity. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to put satellites into space or understand the motions of moons, and planets, apples, footballs, the brides bouqet, that led block I just knocked off the table...

That moots "gravity", whether it's real or imagined, whether it's a valid model or a misunderstanding, it is still mooted. This is supported by abundant direct observations and controlled experiments, over a century of experiments with electromagnetic fields and plasmas, in fact.

In what sense is the moon's gravity mooted? You do know that forces add vectorially and that the gravitational force on the moon from the Earth is about 2*10²⁰N. That means for its effect to be negligible you need an electromagnetic force of at least...oooh... 10²³N. Please show where this force comes from.

 

[sol invictus]

Let's try not to drift too far from the topic at hand, if you like, you can create another thread somewhere else to discuss that. I've entertained this derailment far too seriously long enough by half, I think. Let's get back to the subject at hand, or remain silent.

Unfortunately for you, it's not a derail. Your idea is ridiculous. One of the many reasons is that you ignore gravity, when in fact it's the only force that holds the sun together.

 

[Tubbythin]

False, and False.



False.



False.

What incredible, quantitative and irrefutable arguments you present. How could anyone not be convinced?

 

[Arthur Mann]

Of course they should.

False.

Charged bodies in plasma do not obey "gravity" rules. This is not up for debate, it established fact. It is not a universally accepted fact, but it is universally a proven fact. I won't even entertain notions to the contrary, which would be a mockery of science and seek to contradict over a century of (actual, not imagined) experimental support.

 

[dasmiller]

No, it does not,

It does. Using the current gravity models, we predict the motions of the planets, moons, and satellites with marvelous accuracy. If EM forces are ruling, then why do our spacecraft follow the trajectories we predict for them, regardless of their charge? Why do torsion bar measurements consistently give similar values for G, rather than varying wildly due to the occasional misplaced electron?

Electromagnetic rules dominate, on every scale and at every distance. That part is not up for debate.

As we've shown you repeatedly, the math does not support you here.

And, again, if not gravity, then what holds the sun together?

For that reason, "gravity" models can not accurately describe the motion of planets in the solar system.

But they do. They make extremely accurate predictions, confirmed by subsequent observations.

The reason it "does not" is because "gravity" models were used to derive the masses of the planets. These masses are likely wrong, because, as noted above, "gravity" rules simply do not apply to charged bodies in plasma. There is no escape from this fact, until and unless we can figure out a way to violate physical laws or go to another universe with different laws. If the derived masses are wrong, even if gravity models accurately predict the position of planets over time (just like Ptolemy's did), it in no way verifies "gravity" is valid or understood, because the masses used in the formulas are unlikely to be right except by accident.

If the motions of the planets are dominated by EM, then give us an EM explanation of those motions. Include why the trajectories of the planets do not change as the net charge of the planets changes; if the net charge doesn't change, then explain why being in an elliptical orbit in a time-varying E-field and strongly charged solar wind does NOT cause a change in the net charge. And explain what keeps the sun and planets from flying apart.