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

[Tubbythin]

False.

Again, another excellent argument backed up by irrefutable quantitative evidence.

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.

Except it isn't. In fact there is no way it can possibly be true without throwing Newton's laws of motion out the window. Do you want to throw Newton's laws of motions out the window.
If not then you have to accept that forces act vectorially and as such charged bodies must "obey "gravity" rules.

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.

I'm sorry, but Newton's laws say you're wrong (since forces add vectorially).

 

[Arthur Mann]

One of the many reasons is that you ignore gravity, when in fact it's the only force that holds the sun together.

No experiment has ever verified this notion that gases can be held together by their own weight.

Here are the properties of gases, as explained by the Perdue University College of Science:

Gases have three characteristic properties: (1) they are easy to compress, (2) they expand to fill their containers, and (3) they occupy far more space than the liquids or solids from which they form.

Note that while one of the properties is "compressible", it does not state anywhere that gases compress themselves. In fact it states the opposite, gases expand themselves, left to their own devices. In no case can the weight of a given volume of gas cause spontaneous compression of that gas. That is a pipe dream that is readily refuted by fourth grade science experiments.

 

[Arthur Mann]

In fact there is no way it can possibly be true without throwing Newton's laws of motion out the window.

Remember, this is your claim, not mine. Which of newton's laws must be abandoned and why?

 

[dasmiller]

Note that while one of the properties is "compressible", it does not state anywhere that gases compress themselves. In fact it states the opposite, gases expand themselves, left to their own devices. In no case can the weight of a given volume of gas cause spontaneous compression of that gas. That is a pipe dream that is readily refuted by fourth grade science experiments.

What's compressing our atmosphere at sea level? Is it not the gas above it? Why isn't our atmosphere expanding to occupy all of space?

 

[Tubbythin]

Note that while one of the properties is "compressible", it does not state anywhere that gases compress themselves. In fact it states the opposite, gases expand themselves, left to their own devices. In no case can the weight of a given volume of gas cause spontaneous compression of that gas. That is a pipe dream that is readily refuted by fourth grade science experiments.

Errm. It quite clearly states that for a gas Pressure = Force/Area.

 

[Arthur Mann]

It does.

False.

Using the current gravity models, we predict the motions of the planets, moons, and satellites with marvelous accuracy.

False.

See my previous post where I explain with this "can not" and "does not" occur.

Also, the orbits of these objects are observed, not predicted. The "gravity" model is based on the observations, the model is used to determine properties (mass, velocity), the properties are fed back into the model to produce the orbits. This is circular.

Further, Ptolemy's model made remarkably similar "predictions". To put it another way, Ptolemy's model could accurately predict the position of planets in the sky over time. Still, Ptolemy was wrong. The same thing is taking place right here. You have a model that you think "predicts" accurately, so you cling to it thinking it must be valid. In reality, the model you use neither predicts nor is it particularly accurate.

So, once again, if we could just get back to the subject at hand.

 

[Arthur Mann]

It quite clearly states that for a gas Pressure = Force/Area.

And where is the support for your belief that gases compress themselves under their own weight? I'm not seeing it.

 

[Arthur Mann]

What's compressing our atmosphere at sea level?

It isn't gases compressing themselves under their own weight, to be sure. That can not take place, as per the properties of gases explained by the Perdue University College of Science. If you have issue with their claim, take it up with them. Their contention that gases expand, not contract themselves, contradict stellar fusion models. Which is right, the convoluted and highly speculative stellar fusion model or the known properties of all gases?

Is it not the gas above it?

After learning that gases can in no way compress themselves under their own weight, what do you think it is?

Why isn't our atmosphere expanding to occupy all of space?

It certainly isn't self-compression of gas, which never occurs in this universe. A more likely explanation would be the atmosphere is bound to the Earth by electromagnetic forces. This would handily explain many perplexing features of the atmosphere, like the distinct layers between which there is virtually no mixing. We observe these layers, "gravity" models can not adequately account for them as the materials are not sorted by mass, they are sorted by electrical properties. This lends yet more credence to the electrically-bound atmosphere in favor of gravitational self-compressing gases.

 

[Tubbythin]

Remember, this is your claim, not mine. Which of newton's laws must be abandoned and why?

I'm fairly sure all three of them, but the second is the most obvious since it basically states that the acceleration on a body is proportional to the vectorial sum of all forces acting on that body.

 

[dasmiller]

Also, the orbits of these objects are observed, not predicted.

They are routinely projected forward with striking accuracy.

If you have a better approach, then share it with us. If you have examples of the standard models of planetary or satellite motion giving large errors, share them with us. Or stop telling us that we cannot project planetary motions.

Further, Ptolemy's model made remarkably similar "predictions". To put it another way, Ptolemy's model could accurately predict the position of planets in the sky over time. Still, Ptolemy was wrong. The same thing is taking place right here. You have a model that you think "predicts" accurately, so you cling to it thinking it must be valid.

Indeed, that's kind of my criteria for a model.

For another model to be better, it should
a) be simpler and no less accurate
b) be more accurate, or
c) be more broadly applicable and no less accurate

Until you show us a model that meets one of those criteria, you have not challenged conventional gravity models at all.

It's sort of like you're claiming that you're a better chessplayer than any of us, but you never actually play a game, and your justification for saying you're better is "Karpov sucked!"

 

[dasmiller]

It isn't gases compressing themselves under their own weight, to be sure.

It's kind of an odd coincidence, then, that the pressure of air at sea level corresponds exactly to the mass of all the air above it.

 

[Tubbythin]

False.

This is getting a bit boring. Are you going to support any of this with any quantiative science?

False.

See my previous post where I explain with this "can not" and "does not" occur.

Except it does.

Also, the orbits of these objects are observed, not predicted. The "gravity" model is based on the observations, the model is used to determine properties (mass, velocity), the properties are fed back into the model to produce the orbits. This is circular.

No, they're predicted. Meet Kepler's laws

Further, Ptolemy's model made remarkably similar "predictions". To put it another way, Ptolemy's model could accurately predict the position of planets in the sky over time. Still, Ptolemy was wrong. The same thing is taking place right here. You have a model that you think "predicts" accurately, so you cling to it thinking it must be valid. In reality, the model you use neither predicts nor is it particularly accurate.

No it isn't. For a start your claim about predictions is completely false. Secondly, ptolemy never proposed anything that could explain the motions of the planets and of falling apples and the redshift of photons in stairwells and corrections to GPS and...

So, once again, if we could just get back to the subject at hand.

Yes. The subject hand... Why can you not produce a shred of quantitative evidence to support your claims?

 

[dasmiller]

That can not take place, as per the properties of gases explained by the Perdue University College of Science. If you have issue with their claim, take it up with them.

BTW, I think you mean "Purdue." And their gas properties are based on a straightforward derivation of the ideal gas law. I had to do the same derivation myself, as a sophomore in an aerodynamics class. I understand the limitations of those rules quite well.

If gas does not compress itself, then how does buoyancy work in the atmosphere?

 

[Tubbythin]

And where is the support for your belief that gases compress themselves under their own weight? I'm not seeing it.

Like I said. Measure the air pressure as a function of height from sea level. Compare this with what you'd expect from gravity. Also compare the gravitational pressure in a star with the radiation pressure for hydrostatic equilibrium in such a star. Now compare this with the observed stars.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Arthur Mann

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
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.

I find this response quite confusing. You claim that gravity does not exist and so electrical phenomena are responsible for effects like my weight. I stated the well known Newtonian equation that would determine the force I would feel due to gravity, which we commonly interpret as weight. Since you claim that gravity does not exist, and electrical stuff is really causing my weight, I am asking you to provide the correct electrical configuration and accompanying mathematics to account for my weight. In what way is that off topic?

 

[Tubbythin]

I find this response quite confusing. You claim that gravity does not exist and so electrical phenomena are responsible for effects like my weight. I stated the well known Newtonian equation that would determine the force I would feel due to gravity, which we commonly interpret as weight. Since you claim that gravity does not exist, and electrical stuff is really causing my weight, I am asking you to provide the correct electrical configuration and accompanying mathematics to account for my weight. In what way is that off topic?

I am going to hypothesise it is off topic in the fact that he doesn't want to answer that question. And since it it was a question he can't just declare it false which is, statistically speaking, his most common response. But what do I know?

 

[Arthur Mann]

I'm fairly sure all three of them, but the second is the most obvious since it basically states that the acceleration on a body is proportional to the vectorial sum of all forces acting on that body.

My claim itself moots this objection, because it does not suggest electromagnetic force plus gravity, it suggests gravity is fictional and safely ignored.

 

[Arthur Mann]

They are routinely projected forward with striking accuracy.

It's only striking because the model is invalid. Equally striking were Ptolemy's predictions, which had comparable accuracy, if you factor in the capacity of the instruments to which he had access. All he had to do was keep adding "epicycles" to account for each new observation. That's what is done when "black hole" or "dark matter" are invoked to "explain" away obvious flaws in the models.

 

[Arthur Mann]

It's kind of an odd coincidence, then, that the pressure of air at sea level corresponds exactly to the mass of all the air above it.

not any more coincidental than any other circular argument put forth to explain anything

 

[Arthur Mann]

Like I said...

This argument isn't any less circular now than when it was first proposed, and no less erroneous, either.