RE: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
-Original Message- From: Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint [mailto:zeropo...@charter.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:48 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun? I know this has been discussed in the past years, but I'd like to put this thought out there for the Vorts who joined in the last 12 months... What is electric 'charge'? ... Charge is just a rotational vibration on a particle, easily imparted. Electric currents are the motions of electrons, not charges, i.e. electrostatics is entirely different that electric current phenomena. see: THEORY OF ELECTRONS AND CURRENTS This paper will present the Reciprocal System theory of electrons and currents and compare it with the conventional theory 1. The Electron a. conventional theory According to present theory1 electrons are classified (along with muons and neutrinos) as leptons, meaning that they are not affected by the strong interaction of nuclear forces but suffer the weak interaction that causes beta decay. These subatoms are all considered to be fermions: they obey Fermi-Dirac statistics, have spin s =?, and have spinor-wave functions that satisfy the Dirac equation. The present theory does not yield equations enabling the calculation of electron mass, charge, and magnetic moment. The empirical values are: mass: m = 9.109*10-31 kg (1) charge: e = -1.601*10^-19 coulombs (2) magnetic moment: ue = 9.28*10^-24 joule/tesla (3) Also no size or shape is definitely specified. The closest we have is the following: It is obviously tempting to picture an electron as a spinning sphere of electric charge whose radius is determined by the dimensional relation e2/a = mc2 at which the electrostatic self-energy of the charge distribution is comparable with the relativistic energy of the rest mass. This classical electron radius, a = 2.81785*10-15 m, is an important scale parameter in physics; but the uniqueness of e, the arbitrariness of the quantization rules, and the difficulty of making it properly relativistic, forbid such a purely classical model. Note that for this radius, and for a spin angular momentum of ? A3h, the angular velocity of the electron must be 2*1025 rad/sec - giving an equatorial speed of about 200c! b. Reciprocal System The Reciprocal System is much more specific on the details of electron attributes than conventional theory. My previous papers3 4have described the shape, size, and all motions constituting the electron. The electron is a spherical particle resulting from the rotation of a single photon. The frequency of the photon is n phot = 2R = 6.576115*10^15 cycles/sec (4) (Here R is the Rydberg frequency). The rotational speeds in revolutions per second around the three axes are r/p- 2R/p - 4R/p or in terms of rev/sec welec= 1.0466212*10^15rev/sec. - 2.0932424*10^15 rev./sec -4.1864848*10^15 (5) The electron may be charged or uncharged. If charged, the electron has an added rotational vibratory motion of n-elec = R/2p = 5.233106*10^14 cycles/sec (6) The diameter d of the electron is one natural space unit, reduced by the appropriate inter-regional ratio (142.22 here). Thus, d = 4.55884*10-8/142.22 = 3.2054 A (7) 2. Electron Flow a. conventional theory According to present theory, conduction in metals takes place by movement of the electrons in the outermost shells of the atoms making up the crystalline structure of the solid. These electrons reach an average drift velocity which is directly proportional to the electric field intensity vd = mE (8) where ?, the mobility, has the units m2/V*s. For a conductor of length l, conductivity o(siemans per meter), and cross-sectional area A, eq. (8) may be rewritten as vd = (m*1/(s*A))*I m/s (9) EXAMPLE: For a copper conductor 100 mm long and 3 mm in diameter, what is the average drift velocity of the electrons if the current is 10 amps? For copper, s = 5.8*107 S/M - m = 0.0032 m2/V*s Here A = ? p (3*10-3)2 = 7.0686*10-6 m2 Thus, vd = (.0032*.1/(5.8*107*7.0686*10-6))*10 = 7.805*10-6 m/s b. Reciprocal System In the Reciprocal System, the natural unit of velocity is 2.99793*108 m/s (the speed of light) and the natural unit of current, which is also a velocity, is 1.0535*10-3 amperes. The conversion is thus 2.99793*108 m/s/1.05353*10-3 amps = 2.8456048*1011 m/s/amps. Hence the drift velocity of electrons (here uncharged and massless) in the Reciprocal System is vd = 2.846*1011*I m/s (10) EXAMPLE: For the case of the previous example, vd = 2.846*1011*10 = 2.846*1012 m/s (11) The answer of the Reciprocal System is 3.646*1017 times the answer of conventional theory! Of course, the number of electrons passing a given point per second must be the same in both theories. In the conventional theory, N = (10 C/s)(1 electron/1.6*10-19C) = 6.25*1019 elec/s In the Reciprocal System, N = 3.15842*106 esu/s*1 electron/4.80287*10-10esu *10 amps/1.05353*10-3 amps = 6.24*1019 elec/s
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Harry wrote: On the contrary, don't you think it is indicative that positive and negative charge are more than simply opposites of each other? The difference between the charges is related to mass and size/shape. Your suggestion that it could be simply a difference in the amount of each type of a binary fluid is certainly interesting, but then charge would not be quantized, would it? Or more accurately, we would see fractional charge all over the place. The quantization of charge may reflect a stable vibration of the fluid. The fuild at rest isn't charged. I will agree with the idea that charge has more to do with the underlying medium... If one considers the idea of a polarizable (quantum) vacuum, then I think the likelihood of coming up with a physical explanation for charge is very likely. How would you polarize the quantum vacuum without charges already existing? Why did we even come to think of requiring positive and negative charge as being part of atomic structure? In order to explain basic chemistry; how and why various elements combine to form molecules; why electrons 'hang around' the nucleus to form atoms... Another possibility is that charge is neither positive nor negative. In my physical model of subatomic elements, electrons are coupled to protons because there is a harmonic relationship between their oscillation frequencies, thus, it is independent of mass and size. Proton-proton and electron-electron Cooper pairs is a natural... the E-field and B-field are natural, macroscopic manifestations of the polarized vacuum... In a sense we are both talking about some sort of luminiferous aether but without the silly 19th century desire to have the aether governed by mechanical laws. Harry
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
On 01/09/2012 11:13 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote: Thanks Mauro, Would you say that the number of protons and electrons being ejected from the sun remains relatively equal? I was just thinking about that. I think that the total number of expelled protons must be greater than the number of electrons, to effectively establish an overall electric current with the surroundings, which tries to compensate for the charge disbalance. Electrons are coming in from the surrounding space, and an equilibrium point (at the charge level) should exist somewhere in between, probably located in the reaches of the solar system. That place must be very interesting to study, because there protons and electrons are rejoined. That place would be the (invisible) counterpart of our visible Sun, by the way. And that also gives a more approximate idea of the real Sun, which is comprised by the whole thing. I was also thinking that electromagnetic emission (that is, the Sun's emitted light) can be producing (or contributing to) the charge disbalance in the first place, by gradually depleting the Sun of negative charges. But I'm not sure, because I don't know enough about electromagnetism yet. Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
From Mauro: I was just thinking about that. I think that the total number of expelled protons must be greater than the number of electrons, to effectively establish an overall electric current with the surroundings, which tries to compensate for the charge disbalance. ... If something like that is happening within the sun it seems to me that this results in a charge imbalance. Regardless of whether the charge imbalance is positive or negative it seems to me that the aggregate electrostatic force could counter the weaker gravity forces. It puzzles me that a speculated imbalance of electrostatic forces doesn't end up counteracting the weaker gravity forces and cause our sun to rip itself apart. Of course, for selfish reasons, I'm glad such an Armageddon doesn't happen! In any case, it suggests to me that any electrostatic charge imbalance that may exist within the sun must not be significant enough to counteract the weaker gravity forces. Perhaps sun spots and corona discharges ARE examples of electrostatic charge imbalances attempting to re-balance the surrounding area by exploding away. Maybe electrostatic imbalances DO happen, but fortunately for us, on a less disastrous scale as far as we earthlings are concerned. Of course, there is also the distinct possibility that something else is going on here... something that I haven't taken into account. I suspect that's most likely the case. I don't claim to be a fizzix exp'prt. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
From Mauro: I was just thinking about that. I think that the total number of expelled protons must be greater than the number of electrons, to effectively establish an overall electric current with the surroundings, which tries to compensate for the charge disbalance. ... If something like that is happening within the sun it seems to me that this results in a charge imbalance. Regardless of whether the charge imbalance is positive or negative it seems to me that the aggregate electrostatic force could counter the weaker gravity forces. It puzzles me that a speculated imbalance of electrostatic forces doesn't end up counteracting the weaker gravity forces and cause our sun to rip itself apart. Of course, for selfish reasons, I'm glad such an Armageddon doesn't happen! In any case, it suggests to me that any electrostatic charge imbalance that may exist within the sun must not be significant enough to counteract the weaker gravity forces. Perhaps sun spots and corona discharges ARE examples of electrostatic charge imbalances attempting to re-balance the surrounding area by exploding away. Maybe electrostatic imbalances DO happen, but fortunately for us, on a less disastrous scale as far as we earthlings are concerned. Of course, there is also the distinct possibility that something else is going on here... something that I haven't taken into account. I suspect that's most likely the case. I don't claim to be a fizzix exp'prt. Me neither. I think the problem is with the electrostatic idea... if there are electric currents, then there isn't an electrostatic situation. There's nothing static in a system like the Sun and the Solar System. The solar wind is a subtle (only relatively slow) electrical conductor. Electrical currents are circulating between the Sun's north and South poles, are crossing through the planetary bodies, which offer relatively good conductive paths, and are also being reconnected and fed up with the whole of the surrounding space. Simply because that surrounding space is at different potentials. There's no perfectly isolated electric charge. Moreover: when you have a subtle sea of charged particles, a tenuous plasma, that is a conductive path. And charged particles will unavoidably move from points of more charge to points of less charge. When you add to that that the bodies, including the Sun itself, are translating and rotating, you have an incredibly rich and dynamic situation. Something which is really the opposite, even in a profound sense, of a static, or dead, model.
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
From Mauro, ... I think the problem is with the electrostatic idea... if there are electric currents, then there isn't an electrostatic situation. There's nothing static in a system like the Sun and the Solar System. Ah! THAT's what I missed in my prior speculation. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. The sun, which is obviously generating DYNAMIC electrical currents associated fields is probably the reason why electrSTATIC forces do not appear to be an issue. Good! I now feel secure in the knowledge that the sun is not going to blow up due to an imbalance of static charges! ...Of course, specifications are subject to change over the millennium. [I read that in the fine print] ;-) Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
I know this has been discussed in the past years, but I'd like to put this thought out there for the Vorts who joined in the last 12 months... What is electric 'charge'? Yes, yes, I know what it is according to fizzix books, but the Vort Collective tries to probe down past the 'practical' definition into what it *really* is. Can you separate the 'charge' of an electron (e-) or proton (p+) from its mass? First some things to consider... 1) the CHARGE of an e- and a p+ are the same magnitude, but 'opposite' 2) yet, the MASS of a p+ is 1836 times that of an e- 3) the nucleus (which contains the protons) is likewise much smaller compared to the physical extent of the electron 'shells'. Because of 1) and 2), it would seem that charge has nothing to do with mass, and because of 3), it's not a function of size/volume either. So, what is it? The fact that we build all kinds of neat and wonderful things with the current understanding of electrical charge, doesn't mean we *know* what it is. I think the older generation can grasp the significance of that, but I have concerns about the younger gen... Sometime last year I posted a question as to why the E-field and B-field in electromagnetic waves are perpendicular... someone replied with, because of Maxwell's equations. If you don't understand why that is a non-answer, then you are probably in the younger-gen! -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun? On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:41 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Ok... Mark, Terry. thanks. I'm going have to think about this for a spell since there seem to be different interpretations. Think of it this way: a proton might be composed of 1836 electrons. Add one more and you have a neutron! T
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
I sometime speculate that the electron and the proton are drops of a mix of two electric fluids, which on balance have a corresponding net negative or a net positive charge. Another idea is that there is universal ambient electric fuild, and the difference between the proton and the electron arises because they contain more or less of this ambient fuild. Harry On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I know this has been discussed in the past years, but I'd like to put this thought out there for the Vorts who joined in the last 12 months... What is electric 'charge'? Yes, yes, I know what it is according to fizzix books, but the Vort Collective tries to probe down past the 'practical' definition into what it *really* is. Can you separate the 'charge' of an electron (e-) or proton (p+) from its mass? First some things to consider... 1) the CHARGE of an e- and a p+ are the same magnitude, but 'opposite' 2) yet, the MASS of a p+ is 1836 times that of an e- 3) the nucleus (which contains the protons) is likewise much smaller compared to the physical extent of the electron 'shells'. Because of 1) and 2), it would seem that charge has nothing to do with mass, and because of 3), it's not a function of size/volume either. So, what is it? The fact that we build all kinds of neat and wonderful things with the current understanding of electrical charge, doesn't mean we *know* what it is. I think the older generation can grasp the significance of that, but I have concerns about the younger gen... Sometime last year I posted a question as to why the E-field and B-field in electromagnetic waves are perpendicular... someone replied with, because of Maxwell's equations. If you don't understand why that is a non-answer, then you are probably in the younger-gen! -Mark -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:57 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun? On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:41 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Ok... Mark, Terry. thanks. I'm going have to think about this for a spell since there seem to be different interpretations. Think of it this way: a proton might be composed of 1836 electrons. Add one more and you have a neutron! T
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I know this has been discussed in the past years, but I'd like to put this thought out there for the Vorts who joined in the last 12 months... What is electric 'charge'? Yes, yes, I know what it is according to fizzix books, but the Vort Collective tries to probe down past the 'practical' definition into what it *really* is. Can you separate the 'charge' of an electron (e-) or proton (p+) from its mass? First some things to consider... 1) the CHARGE of an e- and a p+ are the same magnitude, but 'opposite' 2) yet, the MASS of a p+ is 1836 times that of an e- 3) the nucleus (which contains the protons) is likewise much smaller compared to the physical extent of the electron 'shells'. Because of 1) and 2), it would seem that charge has nothing to do with mass, and because of 3), it's not a function of size/volume either. So, what is it? On the contrary, don't you think it is indicative that positive and negative charge are more than simply opposites of each other? The difference between the charges is related to mass and size/shape. Dare to be naive. -- Buckminster Fuller Harry
RE: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Harry wrote: On the contrary, don't you think it is indicative that positive and negative charge are more than simply opposites of each other? The difference between the charges is related to mass and size/shape. Your suggestion that it could be simply a difference in the amount of each type of a binary fluid is certainly interesting, but then charge would not be quantized, would it? Or more accurately, we would see fractional charge all over the place. I will agree with the idea that charge has more to do with the underlying medium... If one considers the idea of a polarizable (quantum) vacuum, then I think the likelihood of coming up with a physical explanation for charge is very likely. Why did we even come to think of requiring positive and negative charge as being part of atomic structure? In order to explain basic chemistry; how and why various elements combine to form molecules; why electrons 'hang around' the nucleus to form atoms... Another possibility is that charge is neither positive nor negative. In my physical model of subatomic elements, electrons are coupled to protons because there is a harmonic relationship between their oscillation frequencies, thus, it is independent of mass and size. Proton-proton and electron-electron Cooper pairs is a natural... the E-field and B-field are natural, macroscopic manifestations of the polarized vacuum... -Mark -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 8:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun? On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: I know this has been discussed in the past years, but I'd like to put this thought out there for the Vorts who joined in the last 12 months... What is electric 'charge'? Yes, yes, I know what it is according to fizzix books, but the Vort Collective tries to probe down past the 'practical' definition into what it *really* is. Can you separate the 'charge' of an electron (e-) or proton (p+) from its mass? First some things to consider... 1) the CHARGE of an e- and a p+ are the same magnitude, but 'opposite' 2) yet, the MASS of a p+ is 1836 times that of an e- 3) the nucleus (which contains the protons) is likewise much smaller compared to the physical extent of the electron 'shells'. Because of 1) and 2), it would seem that charge has nothing to do with mass, and because of 3), it's not a function of size/volume either. So, what is it? On the contrary, don't you think it is indicative that positive and negative charge are more than simply opposites of each other? The difference between the charges is related to mass and size/shape. Dare to be naive. -- Buckminster Fuller Harry
RE: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
There is a net electrostatic charge in the solar corona, as well as in the solar interior. You are aware of the Millsean explanation, for the corona. I have a better citation than this, which I can’t find at the moment. This one will lead you deeper or you can google “electrostatic charge of stars.” http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001A%26A...372..913N -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson I realize this might sound like a dumb question to ask, but I have a question about the aggregate electrical charge of our sun. In regards to our own sun, we assume that hydrogen (and a few other heavier elements) existing in a plasma state is slowing being converted into helium through a complex series of atomic transitions. Is it generally assumed that the aggregate positive/negative charge associated with the number of protons and electrons (but neutrons as well) that exist within our sun in a plasma state tend to cancel each other out when observed from a vantage point millions of miles away? IOW, is the electrical charge of the sun basically neutral from our vantage point? I assume that is most likely the case. Or am I wrong on that point? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Thanks, Jones. I read the paragraph. I'm not surprised read that the paper states ...The global stellar electrostatic field is 918 times stronger than the corresponding stellar gravity... More on that later. Meanwhile, yes, I am basically aware of Mills' explanation of the corona, having something to do with the manufacture of hydrinos, as atomic hydrogen transform into hydrinos due to chance encounters with helium. Mills claims such chance encounters explains why the corona is exceedingly hotter than the surface of the sun. I gather that at present there is no satisfactory mainstream theoretical explanation as to why the corona is as hot as it has been measured to be. Therefore, Mills' audacious CQM explanation remains tantalizing to the eyes of many. Regardless of whether CQM is correct or not, the theory certainly deserves further study. However, the conundrum I'm trying to acquire a better understanding about is whether there exists a distinct electrical charge associated withIN the sun. And if one exists, is it positive or negative? I assume there probably exists an aggregate positive charge within the interior of the sun. Where I'm going with this line of questioning is trying to achieve a better grasp of the balance act between the attractive forces of gravity versus the much stronger repulsive force of like-charged particles (particularly protons). It would seem logical for me to assume that since we know that on a particle-by-particle basis gravitational forces are magnitudes weaker than electrically charged attractive/repulsive forces the aggregate internal electrical charge within the sun must therefore be fairly close to neutral - on average, that is. Otherwise, it would seem to me that the accumulated repulsive forces attributed to all those unpaired protons (with no associated electron charge to even the score) would cause our sun to rip apart violently. Did I miss something fundamentally wrong in my analysis? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Addendum: Let me add that my understanding of gravitation forces is based on applying Newton's famous square of the distance formula. But does the same square of the distance law govern the measured forces of charged particles as well? I was assuming that was indeed the case. But I could be dead wrong! I seem to dimly recall reading somewhere (and I don't know where!!!) that the forces of electrically charged particles have been measured to be to the third or fourth power. If that is the case then my prior analysis should be completely discarded. I bet Mr. Heffner or Mr. Lawrence probably know the answer to my query. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
-Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson I'm not surprised read that the paper states ...The global stellar electrostatic field is 918 times stronger than the corresponding stellar gravity... More on that later. ... Oh… you mean that 918 turns out to be half of a particular value that makes it seem to be rather non-coincidental? … we're not talking magic cubes here … or maybe we are g attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Jones sez: I'm not surprised read that the paper states ...The global stellar electrostatic field is 918 times stronger than the corresponding stellar gravity... More on that later. ... Oh… you mean that 918 turns out to be half of a particular value that makes it seem to be rather non-coincidental? … we're not talking magic cubes here … or maybe we are g ... and a g back. I don't possess sufficient fizzix-speak in my brain to comprehend why it might be interesting that the value 918 is basically half the mass-ratio as measured between protons and electrons. However, I am smart enuf to at least make a note of the peculiarity. (Protons have been measured to be essentially 1,836 times more massive than electrons.) I'm still wondering about whether attractive forces as measured between charged particles is either to the cube or to the fourth power in relation to the distance. Initially, I thought it might be the same as gravity, the square of the distance. I suspect my initial assumption might be wrong. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Yes, for number-freaks in general - 918 is one of those 'pregnant' numbers with Platonic significance ... and in the context of 1836, it comes up from time to time in alternative energy - often wrt Hotson's epo field. Reminds me of a concise and short post written a few years ago ... http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg00349.html -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson I don't possess sufficient fizzix-speak in my brain to comprehend why it might be interesting that the value 918 is basically half the mass-ratio as measured between protons and electrons. However, I am smart enuf to at least make a note of the peculiarity. (Protons have been measured to be essentially 1,836 times more massive than electrons.)
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Attractive forces between two charges is related to 1/r^2 or the second order. A dipole type structure has a different law, but that is not what you seem to be talking about. I suspect that you will need to include the charges that are surrounding the star but not inside if you are to see how the force behaves at a large distance. Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 9, 2012 2:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun? Jones sez: I'm not surprised read that the paper states ...The global stellar electrostatic field is 918 times stronger than the corresponding stellar gravity... More on that later. ... Oh… you mean that 918 turns out to be half of a particular value that makes it seem to be rather non-coincidental? … we're not talking magic cubes here … or maybe we are g ... and a g back. I don't possess sufficient fizzix-speak in my brain to comprehend why t might be interesting that the value 918 is basically half the ass-ratio as measured between protons and electrons. However, I am mart enuf to at least make a note of the peculiarity. (Protons have een measured to be essentially 1,836 times more massive than lectrons.) I'm still wondering about whether attractive forces as measured etween charged particles is either to the cube or to the fourth power n relation to the distance. Initially, I thought it might be the same s gravity, the square of the distance. I suspect my initial ssumption might be wrong. Regards teven Vincent Johnson ww.OrionWorks.com ww.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Jones sez: Reminds me of a concise and short post written a few years ago ... http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg00349.html Ah yes, a classic Jones essay, vintage 2004. I enjoyed reading it... again? Kind of like statisticians hunt'in for wild hairs. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
And in that context, some years ago I acquired one of a very few copies of a book which contained some ideas from 1952 about the relationship between the masses of various particles, which includes a derivation of the magic 1836.1 http://nigel.thedyers.org.uk/Jessup/ Nigel -Original Message- From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: 09 January 2012 19:30 Yes, for number-freaks in general - 918 is one of those 'pregnant' numbers with Platonic significance ... and in the context of 1836, it comes up from time to time in alternative energy - often wrt Hotson's epo field. Reminds me of a concise and short post written a few years ago ... http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg00349.html
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
From David: Attractive forces between two charges is related to 1/r^2 or the second order. Hmmm. Then the sauce is getting thicker for me. ;-) A dipole type structure has a different law, but that is not what you seem to be talking about. Regarding dipoles, According to Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole ... The dipole term is the dominant one at large distances: Its field falls off in proportion to 1/r3, [3rd power] as compared to 1/r4 [fourth power] for the next (quadrupole) term and higher powers of 1/r for higher terms, or 1/r2 for the monopole term. I don't entirely grok this. Complicating matters, there are different flavors of dipoles - for example, charged dipoles and magnetic dipoles. In the past I've done some finite element method magnetic simulations of magnetic configurations. Interesting stuff. I suspect that you will need to include the charges that are surrounding the star but not inside if you are to see how the force behaves at a large distance. Agreed. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
The ratio is not exactly 1836. from wikipedia In physics, the proton-to-electron mass ratio, μ or β, is simply the rest mass of the proton divided by that of the electron. Because this is a ratio of like-dimensioned physical quantity, it is a dimensionless quantity, a function of the dimensionless physical constants, and has numerical value independent of the system of units, namely: μ = mp/me = 1,836.15267245(75). The number enclosed in parentheses is the measurement uncertainty on the last two digits. The value of μ is known to about 0.4 parts per billion. Harry On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:08 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Jones sez: I'm not surprised read that the paper states ...The global stellar electrostatic field is 918 times stronger than the corresponding stellar gravity... More on that later. ... Oh... you mean that 918 turns out to be half of a particular value that makes it seem to be rather non-coincidental? ... we're not talking magic cubes here ... or maybe we are g ... and a g back. I don't possess sufficient fizzix-speak in my brain to comprehend why it might be interesting that the value 918 is basically half the mass-ratio as measured between protons and electrons. However, I am smart enuf to at least make a note of the peculiarity. (Protons have been measured to be essentially 1,836 times more massive than electrons.) I'm still wondering about whether attractive forces as measured between charged particles is either to the cube or to the fourth power in relation to the distance. Initially, I thought it might be the same as gravity, the square of the distance. I suspect my initial assumption might be wrong. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Steven, One time I was interested in the shapes of fields due to charges and found that superposition applies. So, you can think of a dipole as being the sum of two charges with a given separation. The positive charge either attracts your test charge or repels it depending upon its polarity. The negative part of the dipole does the opposite. At large distances the two equal charges tend to cancel out with the only component showing up being due to the distance between them. It is fairly easy to determine the field when broken into two pieces. Good luck with your pursuit. Dave -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jan 9, 2012 2:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun? From David: Attractive forces between two charges is related to 1/r^2 or the second order. Hmmm. Then the sauce is getting thicker for me. ;-) A dipole type structure has a different law, but that is not what you seem to be talking about. Regarding dipoles, According to Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole ... The dipole term is the dominant one at large distances: Its field alls off in proportion to 1/r3, [3rd power] as compared to 1/r4 fourth power] for the next (quadrupole) term and higher powers of 1/r or higher terms, or 1/r2 for the monopole term. I don't entirely grok this. Complicating matters, there are different lavors of dipoles - for example, charged dipoles and magnetic ipoles. In the past I've done some finite element method magnetic imulations of magnetic configurations. Interesting stuff. I suspect that you will need to include the charges that are surrounding the star but not inside if you are to see how the force behaves at a large distance. Agreed. Regards teven Vincent Johnson ww.OrionWorks.com ww.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Harry sez: The ratio is not exactly 1836. I realize that Harry. I got the 1836 number from the same Wiki article. I rounded the measured value to an integer for expediency. Nothing more. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
I liked it as well, Especially when he says 'actual annihilation's is extremely rare!' works well with my NEO LET perspective of ether where VP expanding into then shrinking out of our plane as they flow along a perpendicular extra dimension. Fran -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:49 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun? Jones sez: Reminds me of a concise and short post written a few years ago ... http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg00349.html Ah yes, a classic Jones essay, vintage 2004. I enjoyed reading it... again? Kind of like statisticians hunt'in for wild hairs. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
The ratio is also dimensionless but the ratio of the strength of the sun's electrostatic field to its gravitational field is not dimensionless. Harry On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:16 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Harry sez: The ratio is not exactly 1836. I realize that Harry. I got the 1836 number from the same Wiki article. I rounded the measured value to an integer for expediency. Nothing more. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
From Harry: The ratio is also dimensionless but the ratio of the strength of the sun's electrostatic field to its gravitational field is not dimensionless. Can you clarify what is implied when using the term dimension and dimensionless here. It doesn't compute for me. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Steven: I believe he means 'units' and 'unit-less'... as in volts/meter for electrostatic field strength. He doesn’t mean dimensions as in x,y,z,t dimensions. -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 1:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun? From Harry: The ratio is also dimensionless but the ratio of the strength of the sun's electrostatic field to its gravitational field is not dimensionless. Can you clarify what is implied when using the term dimension and dimensionless here. It doesn't compute for me. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Can you clarify what is implied when using the term dimension and dimensionless here. The mass of the proton is 1836 x the mass of the electron. It's a multiplication factor. No units. T
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Ok... Mark, Terry. thanks. I'm going have to think about this for a spell since there seem to be different interpretations. Semantics can be quite disconcerting to a dyslexic. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:41 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Ok... Mark, Terry. thanks. I'm going have to think about this for a spell since there seem to be different interpretations. Think of it this way: a proton might be composed of 1836 electrons. Add one more and you have a neutron! T
RE: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Typically, when you have a ratio of two things whose units are the same, the answer (ratio) has no units since they cancel, and you're left with a dimensionless (unitless) number. In this case, you have: mp+ / me-, mass / mass -mark -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun? Ok... Mark, Terry. thanks. I'm going have to think about this for a spell since there seem to be different interpretations. Semantics can be quite disconcerting to a dyslexic. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Terry sez: Think of it this way: a proton might be composed of 1836 electrons. Add one more and you have a neutron! Yup. Got that part. Knew that recipe eons ago. Still, I suspect semantics is still getting in the way of what I'm trying to describe. In a nutshell, I'm wondering if the aggregate electrical repulsive charge of gillions of unpaired protons within the sun would be sufficient to overcome the significant weaker forces of gravity. Obviously, that ain't happening cuz the sun still shines. What puzzles me is that if there does exist far more protons (with + charge) than electrons (with - charge) within the sun [leave the effects of the corona out for now] then I don't quite understand why the accumulative repulsive effect of all those orphaned protons don't literally rip the sun apart. Maybe there are still enough electrons residing within the sun to keep all of the loose proton's, and their repulsive actions in check. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
On 01/09/2012 02:41 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson wrote: Thanks, Jones. I read the paragraph. I'm not surprised read that the paper states ...The global stellar electrostatic field is 918 times stronger than the corresponding stellar gravity... More on that later. Meanwhile, yes, I am basically aware of Mills' explanation of the corona, having something to do with the manufacture of hydrinos, as atomic hydrogen transform into hydrinos due to chance encounters with helium. Mills claims such chance encounters explains why the corona is exceedingly hotter than the surface of the sun. I gather that at present there is no satisfactory mainstream theoretical explanation as to why the corona is as hot as it has been measured to be. Therefore, Mills' audacious CQM explanation remains tantalizing to the eyes of many. Regardless of whether CQM is correct or not, the theory certainly deserves further study. However, the conundrum I'm trying to acquire a better understanding about is whether there exists a distinct electrical charge associated withIN the sun. And if one exists, is it positive or negative? I assume there probably exists an aggregate positive charge within the interior of the sun. Where I'm going with this line of questioning is trying to achieve a better grasp of the balance act between the attractive forces of gravity versus the much stronger repulsive force of like-charged particles (particularly protons). It would seem logical for me to assume that since we know that on a particle-by-particle basis gravitational forces are magnitudes weaker than electrically charged attractive/repulsive forces the aggregate internal electrical charge within the sun must therefore be fairly close to neutral - on average, that is. Otherwise, it would seem to me that the accumulated repulsive forces attributed to all those unpaired protons (with no associated electron charge to even the score) would cause our sun to rip apart violently. Did I miss something fundamentally wrong in my analysis? Hi Steven, I think that you didn't miss much (at the level of your analysis) except maybe that neutrons should be considered also, contributing to the gravitational force. What follows is original research, plus some things I borrowed from a number of other sources: At any moment, the mass of the Sun is in a state of unstable equilibrium between the collapse due to gravitational force, and the expansion due not only to heat/pressure, but also to electromagnetic repulsion from one side(from the massive Sun), and attraction from the other side(from to the whole of the surrounding space). The excess of electric charge is being expulsed in the form of charged particles, in the solar wind. The corona is hotter because in that zone charged particles are accelerated, and their increase in velocity is seen as heat. Those charged particles are accelerated because when in the corona, they are already out of the surface of equal charges, and are therefore repelled. At the same time, they are attracted by the general field of surrounding space, which is relatively negative, and therefore attractive for the majority of those particles. The surface of the Sun can be seen as the point of equilibrium between gravitational attraction on one side, vs. electric repulsion on the other side. Of course, I'm not talking about electromagnetic emissions (i.e. emitted light and X-rays, which are concomitant phenomenons) but about electrical currents (i.e. protons and electrons) taking place in tenuous plasmas. Sunspots indicate deficits of charge, whereas coronal mass ejections indicate excesses of charge. Some additional references: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12/26/which-came-first/ and particularly http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12/08/voyager-1-updates-solar-electron-flux/ Now, all that description is of course only a very small part, or aspect, of what is really taking place there; and here too! Regards, Mauro
Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Steven and Mark, Yes that is what I mean. More to the point we take it for granted that gravitational forces can be compared to electrostatic forces. But what are we doing when we say gravity is so much weaker than electromagnetism? This truth is repeated often but I would argue it is a persistent illusion. Unlike forces, lengths and masses can be objectively compared without standard lenght units. It is objectively true that Mt. Everest is much taller than than my house because their heights can be compared without recourse to a standard of unit of length. Similiarly, it is objectively true that the mass of the proton is much greater than the mass of the electron. However, to compare the strength of gravity to the strength of electrostatically charged body, requires a standard body of a given mass and given charge. The hope is that nature comes with its own standards, so we don't have to impose our own standards. The modern way to find unity in nature is to standardise everything but I think this approach is at best metaphysically misleading and at worst spiritually bankrupt. Harry On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Steven: I believe he means 'units' and 'unit-less'... as in volts/meter for electrostatic field strength. He doesn’t mean dimensions as in x,y,z,t dimensions. -Original Message- From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 1:01 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun? From Harry: The ratio is also dimensionless but the ratio of the strength of the sun's electrostatic field to its gravitational field is not dimensionless. Can you clarify what is implied when using the term dimension and dimensionless here. It doesn't compute for me. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:What is the aggregate electrical charge of our sun?
Thanks Mauro, Would you say that the number of protons and electrons being ejected from the sun remains relatively equal? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
