Thunderbolts Forum

'13-11-28, 05:50 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: b) I think increasing plasma density improves conductivity to up a limit. Plasmas are pretty much neutral, as this is a minimum electric potential. A plasma with more ions per Cross sectional area can hold more electrons per cross sectional area, and so can have greater current density and so great current. This is the conventional treatment of the topic, but I disagree. The most detailed explanation of the actual nature of resistance that I ever saw is on Georgia State's website: Microscopic View of Ohm's Law They contend that resistance can be calculated as the time lost in each electron/nucleus collision, plus the time lost in overcoming the inertia of the electron as it gets accelerated through the mean free path to the next collision. The void between the collisions offers no resistance. Thus if the electron was being accelerated through a pure vacuum, the only "resistance" would be its resting inertial force. In any measurable electric field, the electron's inertial force is practically infinitesimal by comparison, so the electron gets rapidly accelerated to a relativistic velocity. So the thinner the plasma, the greater the conductivity. The implication is that the more dense plasma in the heliosphere "should" get a (supposed) galactic current to go around, instead of through the heliosphere, because of the better conductivity in the interstellar medium. meemoe_uk wrote: at whatever magnetic field is powering the Sun is also powering us (?) No each body gets its own private subsurface magnetic field. What's a "subsurface field"? meemoe_uk wrote: Since you haven't been specific I'll just post a link to the Meissner effect. I'm not convinced that the expulsion of magnetic fields from a superconductor is relevant to the study of 6000+ K plasma. Superconductivity is also accompanied by superparamagnetism. Hence the electron spins all get lined up by the external field, and this creates an internal field density that repels the external field. But in 6000+ K plasma, the electrons are fully randomized, meaning no spin alignment, and thus no paramagnetism, and thus no field repulsion. meemoe_uk wrote: Would we be able to measure these fields? The average field that we do measure at the surface is just 1 Gauss Don't think so. It's subsurface. Best thing to do is drill into the Earth to find the Earth's equivalent field. otherwise, what about those magnetic filaments that pop out of the sun's surface? I think they are attached to the subsurface magnetic field. Hang on a second. You're saying that the magnetic field from the galactic current is powering the Sun. I'm saying that if it is, it should be measurable — at the surface of the Sun, and on Earth. But then you're saying that the field is subsurface, and therefore not measurable? I "think" that I'm misunderstanding you, but the "internal field" that came from the galactic current should be measurable "inside" a magnetometer here on Earth, right? meemoe_uk wrote: If the galactic current really is supplying a lot of the sun's power then there should be a stronger magnetic field than 1 gauss, don't you agree? Yes, I agree with that. meemoe_uk wrote: If you can destroy this assertion then my theory looks doubtful. I think that you should continue work on this. IMO, the fatal flaw is the galactic current. Nevertheless, the diagrams that you did are more detailed than anything I've seen the EU produce. I know that sounds odd, considering that this has been the essence of their stellar model for at least 10 years now. But it's a fact that the EU doesn't get into specifics (because that's where all of the problems are). Still, I'm a big believer in seeing every avenue explored, and even the blind avenues need to be documented in order to have a complete map of the territory. And sometimes, a blind alley doesn't turn out to be so blind after all, when later discoveries create a new possibility. Furthermore, even if it stays a blind alley, it's a utility to future generations to have it all mapped out, because they'll do the same thing we're doing — rethink everything. If theoretical work (even of the fruitless variety) is documented, they can easily zip through, instead of laboring through what they think is a new discovery, when really it's the same blind alley that was explored a decade earlier. So all avenues have to be explored and documented. At the very least, there really ought to be a clear, diagrammed statement of the galactic current model.
'13-11-28, 19:16 Solar	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity CharlesChandler wrote: meemoe_uk wrote: Hang on a second. You're saying that the magnetic field from the galactic current is powering the Sun. I'm saying that if it is, it should be measurable — at the surface of the Sun, and on Earth. But then you're saying that the field is subsurface, and therefore not measurable? I "think" that I'm misunderstanding you, but the "internal field" that came from the galactic current should be measurable "inside" a magnetometer here on Earth, right? meemoe_uk wrote: If the galactic current really is supplying a lot of the sun's power then there should be a stronger magnetic field than 1 gauss, don't you agree? Yes, I agree with that. meemoe_uk wrote: If you can destroy this assertion then my theory looks doubtful. I think that you should continue work on this. IMO, the fatal flaw is the galactic current. Nevertheless, the diagrams that you did are more detailed than anything I've seen the EU produce. I know that sounds odd, considering that this has been the essence of their stellar model for at least 10 years now. But it's a fact that the EU doesn't get into specifics (because that's where all of the problems are). Still, I'm a big believer in seeing every avenue explored, and even the blind avenues need to be documented in order to have a complete map of the territory. Some thoughts on the magnetic field expectations above: I would posit that the idea of galactic currents does have some support in the form of the rather unusually characterized "galactic chimneys" . These are large "cavities in the interstellar medium, created by multiple supernova explosions, that can act as conduits for the efficient transport of hot gas from a galaxy's disk to its halo." – Nature These "chimneys", "cavities" or "holes" are known to "pierce" above and below the galactic disk in perpendicular fashion accompanied by so called "galactic rain" or "galactic fountains". Basically, "charge exchange" between the disk and halo via large scale "electric currents" is how I interpret "efficient transport of hot gas from a galaxy's disk to it halo" through these "tubes" in the above reference. We already know that the nomenclature is lacking to simply say what the feature is because "electricity" is the nemesis of modern astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology. Our star and the "Local Bubble" has been assessed as residing in one such "cavity". Members have reviewed a bevy of referenced material regarding the larger scale implications of these findings primarily in the following threads: Voyager One Observations Supports Electric Sun Model? G-Cloud is the answer In general, as concerning those threads, we tried to assess an overview of the presence and 'breakdown' of such larger scale galactic currents into their local siblings (observed via local - relative to our star - "bulk flows", radio scintillations, G-Cloud etc) and vise versa. Then consideration may be had with regard to even larger scales of filaments encompassing entire 'strings', superclusters, of galaxies and the "voids" that have been assessed as existing between them depicted (here) for magnetic fields in the microgauss range for Extragalactic Magnetic fields. It appears that at such scales 1 gauss might already constitute a ramp up as opposed to the perspective that more than this should be expected from a galactic power source. Nonetheless, and in my humble opinion, I think there is supportive evidence for such a relationship. The orders of magnitude relationship then presents the "cosmic web", "void astronomy" , large scale 'filaments', "sheets" beyond which no superlatives can be rendered ("The End of Greatness"). Charles, I am not seeing coverage of this latter scale on your website as perhaps a precursor to "Accretion"; then onward to galaxies and filaments etc. Do you not find it a worthwhile thing to document? I think its inclusion would make your website a bit more ... 'complete' in its coverage for lack of a better term.
'13-11-29, 02:55 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Solar wrote: I would posit that the idea of galactic currents does have some support in the form of the rather unusually characterized "galactic chimneys" . These are large "cavities in the interstellar medium, created by multiple supernova explosions, that can act as conduits for the efficient transport of hot gas from a galaxy's disk to its halo." I agree with your assessment that the "galactic chimneys [...] created by multiple supernova explosions" are described in a suspiciously Newtonian way, considering the non-Newtonian nature of supernova explosions. I'd tend to think of something like this as similar to bipolar jets, which are known to be charged, and which are known to stay organized much better than fluid dynamics predicts, and which I conclude to be magnetically pinched charge streams, where the organizing principle is electrodynamics. But a z-pinched jet isn't necessarily a galactic energy source, just because it's charged and extra-galactic. First, extra-galactic jets break down in Herbig-Haro objects, which is inconsistent with a steady charge stream straight to the next galaxy in the daisy chain. Second, the energy in galactic jets is nothing compared to the total energy in a galaxy. So I'm questioning whether the jets can do the job. Solar wrote: Members have reviewed a bevy of referenced material regarding the larger scale implications of these findings primarily in the following threads: I have been maintaining a list of alternative models and supporting evidence in tabular format, and just recently, I have done the same thing in outline format, which is totally open-ended (i.e., the format can handle an unlimited amount of material). I will continue to add information to these as time permits. If somebody wants to do a concise review of the "bevy of referenced material", I will gladly add it to my survey of models and supporting evidence. If it's left up to me to read through threads with hundreds of posts to extract the salient points, well, I'll get to it when I get to it. Solar wrote: Then consideration may be had with regard to even larger scales of filaments encompassing entire 'strings', superclusters, of galaxies and the "voids" that have been assessed as existing between them depicted (here) for magnetic fields in the microgauss range for Extragalactic Magnetic fields. I would consider a microgauss magnetic field to be about as significant as gravity — if that's all you got, you ain't got nothin'. What is the influence of the Earth's 0.5 gauss field? It orients magnetized particles. What else does it do? Ummm... It causes the aurora. And what else? Ummm... Now consider the significance of a 0.000001 gauss field... Solar wrote: Do you not find it a worthwhile thing to document? I think its inclusion would make your website a bit more ... 'complete' in its coverage for lack of a better term. If somebody wants to look over the material that I have already assembled, and figure out how "galactic chimneys" and/or extra-galactic fields could be included, and compile the data into a concise format, I'll be happy to post it. I disagree with most of the stuff on my site, so it never stopped me before... But if the people who are familiar with the material aren't willing to compile it, I'm not exactly going to drop everything else I've got going to start digging for it. So lend a hand...
'13-11-29, 16:12 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Reading the first post on this thread I am struggling to understand why the poster thinks that Newtons gravity law is wrong. Density has nothing to do with gravity. The grav force is just proportional to the total mass. But surely this is all obvious so why the doubts?
'13-11-29, 22:34 Aardwolf	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: Reading the first post on this thread I am struggling to understand why the poster thinks that Newtons gravity law is wrong. Density has nothing to do with gravity. The grav force is just proportional to the total mass. But surely this is all obvious so why the doubts? Density is required to determine how much mass in a specific area. You can't know the mass without knowing the density. Does a ping pong ball have the same mass as a golf ball?
'13-11-30, 01:51 Ozelo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Aardwolf wrote: marengo wrote: Reading the first post on this thread I am struggling to understand why the poster thinks that Newtons gravity law is wrong. Density has nothing to do with gravity. The grav force is just proportional to the total mass. But surely this is all obvious so why the doubts? Density is required to determine how much mass in a specific area. You can't know the mass without knowing the density. Does a ping pong ball have the same mass as a golf ball? Will some "10^-5 times smaller" golf ball has the same mass as a ping pong ball? Will some "osmium like" ping pong ball has the same mass as a "gallium like" golf ball? Ye, its just a matter of systems of reference.
'13-12-02, 11:18 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Aardwolf wrote: Density is required to determine how much mass in a specific area. You can't know the mass without knowing the density. Does a ping pong ball have the same mass as a golf ball? Gravity effectively operates from a point source, eg the center of the Sun etc. Volume has nothing to do with it. The answer to your pointless question is NO, SO WHAT!
'13-12-02, 11:24 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Ozelo wrote: Will some "10^-5 times smaller" golf ball has the same mass as a ping pong ball? Will some "osmium like" ping pong ball has the same mass as a "gallium like" golf ball? Ye, its just a matter of systems of reference. See my answer to the previous post. Volume (and hence density neither) has nothing to do with gravity. I cant believe what I am reading in recent posts.
'13-12-02, 22:08 Ozelo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: Ozelo wrote: Will some "10^-5 times smaller" golf ball has the same mass as a ping pong ball? Will some "osmium like" ping pong ball has the same mass as a "gallium like" golf ball? Ye, its just a matter of systems of reference. See my answer to the previous post. Volume (and hence density neither) has nothing to do with gravity. I cant believe what I am reading in recent posts. Consider the following (Newtonian Mechanics): A test particle of mass "mg1" and a spherical shell of mass "Mg". We can see that: Page 23 of Relational Mechanics by Andre K. T. Assis If the test particle is outside the spherical shell it will be attracted as if the whole shell were concentrated at its center. If the test particle is anywhere inside the shell it will not experience any net gravitational force. This does not mean that volume has something to do with gravity? In other words, you feel pain when you hit your head against the wall because the whole universe mass out there, not because the wall mass or "density". I just think that this is not really true at all times and that is why I said that it is a matter of systems of reference. And that's not much obvious as we thought, isn't?
'13-12-04, 02:05 Aardwolf	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: Aardwolf wrote: Density is required to determine how much mass in a specific area. You can't know the mass without knowing the density. Does a ping pong ball have the same mass as a golf ball? Gravity effectively operates from a point source, eg the center of the Sun etc. Volume has nothing to do with it. These may be your own personal views regarding gravity but the OP is disputing the mainstream viewpoint and its failings.
'13-12-04, 02:30 Aardwolf	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: Gravity effectively operates from a point source, eg the center of the Sun etc. Volume has nothing to do with it. Out of interest, whats your explanation for Mars and Mercury having the same surface gravity?
'13-12-04, 02:44 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity duplicate post deleted
'13-12-04, 02:45 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: marengo wrote: Gravity effectively operates from a point source, eg the center of the Sun etc. That is not proven nor known. There is no such thing as a point. Gravity's source and reason for existence, how it is distributed, is unknown.
'13-12-04, 03:10 JeffreyW	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: viscount aero wrote: marengo wrote: Gravity effectively operates from a point source, eg the center of the Sun etc. That is not proven nor known. There is no such thing as a point. Gravity's source and reason for existence, how it is distributed, is unknown. I concur. A point is a geometric idea that has no extension. Anybody with basic understand of geometry understands this. This understanding is routinely ignored by establishment physicists. They choose to make "points" as 3D reality. This means they do not care for physics or reality, but only choose to do math. "5. Mathematician: Someone who does not care for physics or reality, but chooses to do math." 5. Mathematicians. They are useless unless they apply some of their math to physics, which like I said in #4, math is confused for physics all the time. The mathematicians will never understand the causes of gravitation. This is not because they are "dumb" but because they confuse math for physics.
'13-12-04, 03:24 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity JeffreyW wrote: viscount aero wrote: viscount aero wrote: marengo wrote: Gravity effectively operates from a point source, eg the center of the Sun etc. That is not proven nor known. There is no such thing as a point. Gravity's source and reason for existence, how it is distributed, is unknown. I concur. A point is a geometric idea that has no extension. Anybody with basic understand of geometry understands this. This understanding is routinely ignored by establishment physicists. They choose to make "points" as 3D reality. This means they do not care for physics or reality, but only choose to do math. "5. Mathematician: Someone who does not care for physics or reality, but chooses to do math." 5. Mathematicians. They are useless unless they apply some of their math to physics, which like I said in #4, math is confused for physics all the time. The mathematicians will never understand the causes of gravitation. This is not because they are "dumb" but because they confuse math for physics. +100 you got it. A "point" is only conceptual. It has no dimension or ability to conduct any form of physical influence. There is also no such thing as a "2D surface" in actuality. It is only a mathematical concept for practical construction. One cannot go out to the grocery or hardware store and bring a "2D surface" back home for the family to view and experience. Moreover, a "2D surface", in a topographical sense, is a contradiction of terms. It is a nonsense phrase.