-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
-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
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
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 ...
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
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
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
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:
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
-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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
