-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 t
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
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 sug
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
wrote:
> I know this has been discussed in the past years, but I'd like to put
> this
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint
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
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: Ter
---
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
wrote:
> Ok...
>
> Mark, Terry.
>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 bringin
> 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.
>
> ...
>
>
>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
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 th
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
> 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
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 bas
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 ag
teven 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
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:41 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
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 h
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
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM, OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
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
anuary 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
> dimensionl
>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
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
wrote:
> Harry sez:
>
>> The ratio is not exactly 1836.
>
> I realize that Harry. I g
rom: 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 ...
&
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
-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
To: vortex-l
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
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 dimensionle
>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:
htt
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 Messag
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 Vincen
how the force behaves at a large distance.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson
To: vortex-l
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 sta
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
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
-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 parti
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 w
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 someth
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
