At 3:16 PM 11/10/4, Jones Beene wrote: >Perhaps one doesn't even need to go to a singularity.
A singularity is not required, but the g field would have to be inside a Swartzchild radius. The problem is that pairs form spontaneously from the vacuum with only the mutually opposed momentum that can be momentarily borrowed. Their time of separation, and thus maximum distance of separation, are small random variables which are limited in size by the Heisenberg principle. Pairs attract back together unless the force of gravity at the point of maximal (radial to the black hole center of mass) separation exceeds the attractive electrostatic force. The mututal gravitational force between the pair members is negligible. It is the large g force of the black hole present within some radius of the center of mass of the black hole that is important. A singularity is not required, but the gravitational field that can separate pairs with even a small probability is a colossal gravitational field. In adition, charge imbalance that accumulates must be overcome by the gravity as well. This ultimately results in a non-zero net charge equilibrium, with charge quantity dependent on the black hole mass. For example, suppose positrons have a negative gravitational charge, while electrons have a positive gravitatonal charge. There is then a small gravitational repulsion between members of a pair which is massively offset by their electrostatice force of attraction. However, if a pair forms in a very high g field inside a black hole, and the positron is repelled by the black hole mass, and the electron is attracted, then if the separation of the pair is sufficient and in the right radial direction, and the g large enough, the repelling of the positron due to the gravitational force exceeds the atrraction of the electrons, and the energy of pair creation is permanently borrowed form the vacuum. The black hole mass is permanently increased by the mass of the electron and the positiron has nothing to prevents its very energetic escape from the black hole other than annihilation with some other electron. As this process continues, however, the accumulation of electrons builds a negative charge and an equilibrium results due to the positrons being held by the E field overwhelming the g field. If positrons posess negative gravitational charge, we would then expect all ordinary black holes to be negatively charged. Negative mass black holes should thus all be positively charged. The amount of charge carried by a black hole is then a function of its mass, and the charge of a black hole is negative if the black hole is ordinary matter, and positive if the black hole matter carries negative gravitational charge. The accumulation of charge and mass from the vacuum in this manner then gradually neutralizes the net force of gravity over time, at least under the principles in the "GR, QM, and Field Unification" theory posted here earlier. >Has >anyone answered the question satisfactorily, for instance, >of why our sun doesn't develop a high negative (or >positive) charge. Why would anyone expect equilibrium for the sun, which is gravitationally very small, to not be maintained near zero net charge? Charge imbalance greatly exceeds gravitational effects. >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. Flares consist of plasma, of matter of very close to neutral charge. There is a massive charge pulse however, due to the fact electrons are spewed out at a higher speed and thus a cloud of electrons reaches earth before the heavier positive particles. >The huge magnetic >field of the sun should arguably capture more electrons in >the corona than protons - so what is going on? I don't see the problem. It is all a matter of equilibrium. Any imbalance is adjusted to an equilibrium point. No large net charge can develop. > >Mainstream science is convinced that the electric force >plays no macroscopic role in the Universe, Where is this consensus? I've read articles stating the opposite (sorry, don't remember where or when), that there is evidence of large interstellar electrostatic fields in some parts of 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. Yes, solar flare particles should contribute a net charge of zero to the space near our solar system, and recombination of the species seems likely. > >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! Equilibrium prevents this kind of net charge from happening. A tiny E within a plasma ultimately results in a large corrective current that neutralizes the source of the E. Regards, Horace Heffner
