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

[Arthur Mann]

I stated the well known Newtonian equation that would determine the force I would feel due to gravity, which we commonly interpret as weight.

The equation you mention doesn't determine anything, it merely described the motion, without any attempt to explain why the motion is occurring. Newton proposed no explanation, merely described the behavior. Newton did not even suggest "gravity" was the cause of the motion, he proposed no cause to explain it.

In what way is that off topic?

I thought this would be obvious. See the OP to refresh your memory as to the topic of this thread.

 

[Arthur Mann]

This is getting a bit boring.

Go do something else, then. I find this subject fascinating.

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

Actually the orbits are observed, not predicted. Predictions are made as to the future positions of planets, but the orbits are indeed observed. They are not predicted. They are not derived. They are observed.

For a start your claim about predictions is completely false.

False.

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

I meant the subject of the thread, I refer you to the OP if you've forgotten it.

 

[Arthur Mann]

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?

off topic and banal

 

[Perpetual Student]

Arthur Mann

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
I stated the well known Newtonian equation that would determine the force I would feel due to gravity, which we commonly interpret as weight.

The equation you mention doesn't determine anything, it merely described the motion, without any attempt to explain why the motion is occurring. Newton proposed no explanation, merely described the behavior. Newton did not even suggest "gravity" was the cause of the motion, he proposed no cause to explain it.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
In what way is that off topic?

I thought this would be obvious. See the OP to refresh your memory as to the topic of this thread

There seems to be a basis for even more confusion here. The OP is: Electric sun theory. You have stated that electric phenomena can account for the observations we make of the sun, including its shape and its very aggregation as an object. Newton's theory of universal gravity has been the explanation of mainstream physics not only of the sun's shape and aggregation as an object, but also of all celestial motions and the forces that keep us tethered to the earth -- including my weight. You have stated that gravity does not exist; consequently I have asked you to provide the correct electrical configuration and accompanying mathematics to account for my weight, which is accounted for by gravity by mainstream physicists, but which you say does not exist. The same force that causes the sun to be spherical accounts for my weight in Newtonian physics. So, I am asking about the electrical stuff that replaces it under your theory. In what way is that off topic?

 

[sol invictus]

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.

If we "take it up with them" and they tell us they are in full agreement with standard, basic physics (like stellar fusion models and the standard results for atmospheric pressure due to gravity), what would you say?

 

[Arthur Mann]

Newton's theory of universal gravity

Newton didn't propose a cause for gravitation. Later interpretation of his work led to speculations about a "force of nature" called "gravity", but Newton himself did not describe gravity this way. In fact he flatly refused the idea that he was suggesting an explanation for why things fall to Earth. He merely observed it and derived a few simple formulas for predicting it.

There is no inconsistency between using Newton's ideas to describe motion and positing in an unrelated fashion the precise nature of that motion and what causes it. Newton didn't offer the "why", he just offered "how". This is "how" it works, not this is "why" it works. Subsequent interpretation has led to speculation that "gravity" is a "how", that is to say that it's a "force of nature" that we discovered, not that it is a mathematical contrivance to describe something not fully understood.

A lot of time has passed since Newton's day. Now we have the "why" answer, and it isn't "gravity", which has been elevated to deistic status by its adherents by the continual application of metaphysical gibberish masquerading as science.

has been the explanation of mainstream physics not only of the sun's shape and aggregation as an object, but also of all celestial motions and the forces that keep us tethered to the earth -- including my weight.

While it's true that the beliefs you express are mainstream, they're not physics. Physics, practiced as a science, relies on experimental verification of phenomena. Gravatists impose no such restriction on their storytelling.

You have stated that gravity does not exist

I may have stated this, but I doubt it. I think what I said was that "gravity" is starkly misunderstood by people. I've illuminated that simple comment above so you can examine it further.

consequently I have asked you to provide...

This is the fourth or fifth time I can remember reading this same challenge. If I didn't make it clear by ignoring it, I have no intention of pretending knowledge that I don't actually have. I can't give you what you're asking for here, and I'm not going to address it if you bring it up again.

 

[Arthur Mann]

If we "take it up with them" and they tell us they are in full agreement with standard, basic physics (like stellar fusion models and the standard results for atmospheric pressure due to gravity), what would you say?

This is an interesting hypothetical scenario. Perhaps if you actually do this, I'll respond then. Of course I might not, you never know. I'm sorry I can't be more committal on this issue, but you are bringing up an entirely hypothetical situation involving university professors denying their own publicly-stated beliefs about the way gases behave.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Newton didn't propose a cause for gravitation. Later interpretation of his work led to speculations about a "force of nature" called "gravity", but Newton himself did not describe gravity this way. In fact he flatly refused the idea that he was suggesting an explanation for why things fall to Earth. He merely observed it and derived a few simple formulas for predicting it.

That is totally irrelevant and a diversion. He proposed the laws of gravity, which involved an "invisible force" regardless of what his perspective of the cause was. Hundreds of years have passed since then, and we now recognize gravity as one of the fundamental forces of nature.

There is no inconsistency between using Newton's ideas to describe motion and positing in an unrelated fashion the precise nature of that motion and what causes it. Newton didn't offer the "why", he just offered "how". This is "how" it works, not this is "why" it works. Subsequent interpretation has led to speculation that "gravity" is a "how", that is to say that it's a "force of nature" that we discovered, not that it is a mathematical contrivance to describe something not fully understood.

More irrelevance! See my comments above.

A lot of time has passed since Newton's day. Now we have the "why" answer, and it isn't "gravity", which has been elevated to deistic status by its adherents by the continual application of metaphysical gibberish masquerading as science.

And what is that "why" answer that you have? Can it describe mathematically the forces that define my weight?

While it's true that the beliefs you express are mainstream, they're not physics. Physics, practiced as a science, relies on experimental verification of phenomena. Gravatists impose no such restriction on their storytelling.

Do you actually believe that gravity has no experimental verification? Take a look (LINK) at he evidence for GR. By the way, your choice of the word "gravitist" is silly.

I may have stated this, but I doubt it. I think what I said was that "gravity" is starkly misunderstood by people. I've illuminated that simple comment above so you can examine it further.

No, here is a comment from your post # 778:

"Can you generate gravity? Can you block it or amplify it? Can you manipulate it in any fashion? If you can't, that suggests quite strongly that it is fictional."

This is the fourth or fifth time I can remember reading this same challenge. If I didn't make it clear by ignoring it, I have no intention of pretending knowledge that I don't actually have. I can't give you what you're asking for here, and I'm not going to address it if you bring it up again.

Ah, so you admit hat you cannot demonstrate mathematically the derivation of my weight using your electric theories. Well, here is the way we do it with gravity: [latex] F=G\dfrac {m_1m_2}{r^2}[/latex]. You mentioned your fondness of Occam's razor; is there a simpler equation using electric concepts (perhaps one that you have forgotten but can refer me to)?

 

[Ziggurat]

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

Except it's not true.

That claim is sourced

I don't care what the source is for something that's obviously false.

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.

You clearly don't get it. I never said atoms or subatomic particle had no dipole moments. But ignoring the fact that electric dipoles are different than magnetic dipoles (ie, you're moving the goalpost again), it doesn't matter if atoms have electric dipole moments. They still cannot produce the claimed effect. Simple electromagnetism: such a radially polarized dipole configuration (electric or magnetic) will produce zero field outside the body. Nor are there any other possible arrangements of dipole moments which can produce a 1/r² field.

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.

Do you even know what Gauss's law is? If so, why don't you try applying it? Go ahead, prove me wrong. Do the integral, it's trivially easy. If you can, you'll either find I'm right or prove me wrong. If you can't, then you've got no grounds on which to claim that what I claimed isn't a consequence of Gauss's law.

Or I can do it for you. Just ask.

 

[Arthur Mann]

He proposed the laws of gravity

Not exactly, he proposed laws of motion governing bodies experiencing gravitation, which was ascribed the generic description "force", which allowed him to use math to quantify it. What does a force look like? How much does a force weigh? Can you store force in some kind of force battery? Can you use the force?

It's not a dodge, it's just a fact, Newton didn't imagine "gravity" as a property of matter, and as a force it's only metaphysically tied to matter. Newton's position was essentially that he had no idea what caused the attraction, but that it clearly existed, so he described it as best he could. Incidentally, he wasn't the first to do this, so calling it "newton's laws" really frosts my weenie.

I haven't said anything about it until now, but you reveal a lot of cultural indoctrination when you call it "Newton's" laws. If you aren't from a european culture you're likely from one that's been economically and socially dominated by a european culture. But then I guess you could say that about anyone in any country.

Further, outside Earth's embrace, gravity fails utterly. It can't accurately describe something as ubiquitous as galaxies without resorting to "unobservable" stuff like "black hole" and "dark matter". It can't explain simple phenomena like the pioneer anomaly, just to name one. It can't be used to accurately determine the masses of the planets, because gravity's "laws" are mooted with respect to charged bodies able to interact electrically, which describes every body in the solar system and everything we can see in space.

And none of this bears directly on the electric star model or on plasma cosmology. Whether or not gravity is something real we have to contend with or a stark misunderstanding based on preconceived bias, electric star models make essentially the same assertions and predictions. Since gravity's rules are mooted by electromagnetic forces, we may ignore them. If they're not real in the first place, we may ignore them. Bottom line: we may ignore them

 

[Arthur Mann]

Except it's not true.

False.

the fact that electric dipoles are different than magnetic dipoles (ie, you're moving the goalpost again)

I'm not changing the standard for success here, it's the same as it's always been. The only known way magnetic fields are caused is by electric currents. If you have a magnetic dipole then you have a consequent electric dipole.

Go ahead, prove me wrong.

It's widely known that the burden of proof is on the claimant. You claimed there was a violation of gauss law, explain the nature of the violation. Also explain how you can be so certain gauss "law" is really a law. You believe in gravity as a property of real matter while over 99% of the universe (all of which is made of real matter) seems to be conspiring to pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[Arthur Mann]

You mentioned your fondness of Occam's razor; is there a simpler equation using electric concepts (perhaps one that you have forgotten but can refer me to)?

I mentioned no such thing. I do wish you'd read more carefully.

First of all, occam's razor is a rule of thumb, not science. It's a handy guide to investigation, but it is not the sole determinant of a valid idea. Sherlock Holmes' famous axiom also applies, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

That said, occam's razor does not say the simplest equation wins. I don't think you understand the axiom. Axioms are all axiomatic, in any case, and not technically germane. They're good inspiration if you're of the type that lacks hunches or intuition.

 

[Arthur Mann]

I mentioned no such thing. I do wish you'd read more carefully.

First of all, occam's razor is a rule of thumb, not science. It's a handy guide to investigation, but it is not the sole determinant of a valid idea. Sherlock Holmes' famous axiom also applies, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

That said, occam's razor does not say the simplest equation wins. I don't think you understand the axiom. Axioms are all axiomatic, in any case, and not technically germane. They're good inspiration if you're of the type that lacks hunches or intuition.

[ETA - Incidentally, I'd use the same formula you use to calculate your motion if you were, for example, falling off a building or into a pit of snakes and so on. I'd use a scale to measure your weight, I wouldn't calculate it at all. Why use math to guess what you can directly observe? I've been steadily avoiding mentioning this to you, because I know how upset it's going to make you to know that I consider your question utter gibberish. ]

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not changing the standard for success here, it's the same as it's always been. The only known way magnetic fields are caused is by electric currents. If you have a magnetic dipole then you have a consequent electric dipole.

What on earth are you talking about? An electric dipole has no current. It produces no magnetic dipole. What ever made you think it did?

It's widely known that the burden of proof is on the claimant. You claimed there was a violation of gauss law, explain the nature of the violation.

The net charge in your configuration is still zero. You've shifted charges radially, but that doesn't produce any net charge. So if you form a surface around the earth, by Gauss's law, the surface integral of the electric field is equal to the net charge enclosed. No net charge enclose, no surface field. We can make that surface at any radius we want, the result is the same everywhere outside your object.

Also explain how you can be so certain gauss "law" is really a law.

Because it's been tested many times and in many ways. It's a fundamental part of electromagnetism. Since you're so insistent that the universe runs on electromagnetism, how can you be so unaware of what electromagnetism even is?

 

[Ziggurat]

Further, outside Earth's embrace, gravity fails utterly.

Strange. It seemed to work wonderfully for the Cassini probe. Random coincidence?

 

[Arthur Mann]

What on earth are you talking about?

Physics.

An electric dipole has no current.

An electric dipole is a "moment", it's not an entity, it describes charge separation, charge separation implies an electric current.

It produces no magnetic dipole.

False.

What ever made you think it did?

Reason and the sum of human knowledge.

So if you form a surface around the earth, by Gauss's law, the surface integral of the electric field is equal to the net charge enclosed. No net charge enclose, no surface field.

You seem to think the idea is that the Earth (or the sun?) is a battery containing charge. That's not the case. The electric currents powering, for example, the aurorae, are part of a circuit, and the source of that electricity is not within the Earth.

We can make that surface at any radius we want, the result is the same everywhere outside your object.

You can take any red herring you want, too. non sequitur

Since you're so insistent that the universe runs on electromagnetism, how can you be so unaware of what electromagnetism even is?

Support for your claim that I am unaware (of anything, but in particular) of electromagnetism? Is this just flat assertion and attempted ad hominem by sleight-of-hand?

 

[Arthur Mann]

Random coincidence?

It wasn't random coincidence that got the Cassini to Saturn, it was no fewer than five anticipated and very necessary midcourse corrections. The Cassini also experienced the pioneer anomaly, an effect gravitists have yet to offer a coherent explanation for. The electric star model suggests the quite reasonable hypothesis that the acceleration is caused by the radial electric field powering the sun. The acceleration is constant because the speed of electrons (and light, by the way) is constant.

[ETA -

It's also worth noting that the voltage gradient in space is constant where we've observed, this effect is real and it distinguishes the electrical model in that all other proposed causes suffer the inverse square proportionality, making them all feebly inadequate.

]

 

[Ziggurat]

An electric dipole is a "moment", it's not an entity, it describes charge separation, charge separation implies an electric current.

You need a current to create a separation initially. But once you're separated... no more current.

And the current needed doesn't form a magnetic dipole anyways. You need a current loop for that, which an electric dipole never has, even while forming.

So... fail again.

You seem to think the idea is that the Earth (or the sun?) is a battery containing charge. That's not the case. The electric currents powering, for example, the aurorae, are part of a circuit, and the source of that electricity is not within the Earth.

The aurora has nothing to do with the proposed electric dipole model of gravity. How could it, when the proposed model is spherically symmetric and the aurora is obviously not?

Support for your claim that I am unaware (of anything, but in particular) of electromagnetism? Is this just flat assertion and attempted ad hominem by sleight-of-hand?

Your repeated fundamental mistakes, both in prior posts and in this post, are direct evidence of that assertion.

 

[Ziggurat]

It The electric star model suggests the quite reasonable hypothesis that the acceleration is caused by the radial electric field powering the sun.

Strange that this radial electric field always produces a force proportional to mass and not to charge.

The acceleration is constant because the speed of electrons (and light, by the way) is constant.

The acceleration isn't constant. It varies as 1/r². Both gravity and electricity agree on this point, and so do observations. How could you get that so wrong?

It's also worth noting that the voltage gradient in space is constant where we've observed

So the sun's electric field is fundamentally different than electric fields on earth? What an odd assertion for someone so intent on using electricity because of all the experiments that have been performed with it.

 

[Arthur Mann]

You need a current to create a separation initially. But once you're separated... no more current.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. I sure don't know what you're talking about. In any case, I'm not going to pursue this any further with you.