Horace, You raise several intriguing points
> >At any rate, consider the antigravity electron WRT either > >the positron or the (*e-) particle. Is the positron also > >antigravity? And if not, what is the interaction of gravity > >with (*e-) ? > Food for thought: if *either* electrons or positrons (but not both) > contained a negative or even only a net neutral gravitational charge then > black holes of sufficient mass would spew them forth in enormous quantities. ....unless of course, this object (black hole) is also the ultimate source for Dirac's "negative energy" electrons. IOW the black hole does spew out charge imbalance, but only into reciprocal space. > Regardless of the energy (inertia) of any particle having a negative > gravitational charge, assuming every particle has an anti-particle that can > be formed via vacuum fluctuations, a sufficiently massive black hole can > continuously eject such particles at the rate at which they spontaneously > form via vacuum fluctuations within some critical radius of the sigularity. > Such an activity, if it involved only one species of particle, i.e. > electrons and positrons, would quickly be curtailed as a net charge > develops on the black hole sufficient to counteract the gravitational > repulsion. Black holes of a given but greater than minimum size then > should all electrostatically repel each other. Perhaps one doesn't even need to go to a singularity. Has anyone answered the question satisfactorily, for instance, of why our sun doesn't develop a high negative (or positive) charge. It is well-known that the Sun emits billions of tons of charged matter daily, and occasionally we get enough of an imbalance here to shut down hi-tension lines - as in 1989 and lesser events. The huge magnetic field of the sun should arguably capture more electrons in the corona than protons - so what is going on? Mainstream science is convinced that the electric force plays no macroscopic role in the Universe, but I'm not so sure. There used to be conferences held on the "Non-electric Universe". Was a consensus ever reached (doubtful)?Although matter in the Cosmos consists of huge positive and negative charges such as in solar flares, the incredible strength of the electric force seems to inhibit the macroscopic separation of these charges over time, unless there is more to the story. For example, if only a fractional gram of free protons (in overbalance) were to gather on our Sun, it would blow itself up because electrostatic repulsion would be stronger than the huge gravity generated by the 10^31 Kg mass... but prior to that, at least a smaller amount of free protons should deform the Sun to a big egg if they were distributed unevenly! The strength of the electric is force beyond imagination... or is it somehow self-nullified by its own strength - kind of like a "natural" capacitor. Perhaps that is the main function of reciprocal space. Macroscopic electric charges may arguably have cosmological results e.g. galaxies which do not move according to the gravity-law or the accelerating expansion of the Universe. In the case of some galaxies and black holes, erratic movement may be because they are not contributing their share, or else are contributing too much mass/energy to the Dirac sea. Such cosmological results are explainable (in possibility) by correlating the "Dirac sea" to the mysterious dark energy, As you say, food for thought... ...and enough to cause major the charge imbalance known a heartburn... Jones
