Metatron wrote:

electricgravity1 wrote:That's one main reason why the surface of the Earth is negatively charged.

At what field density?

Earth's surface typically has an average of - 500kC.
Earth's surface is 5.1x10^14 m^2
Therefore Charge per area is 9.8x10^-10 C/m^2
About 6.11 billion excess electrons per square metre.

Working out charge density is a bit arbitrary, charge is usually measured vs area. But there is some sense in having density ratio here:
For 1 m^3 of ground at 2000kg, thats about 1 excess electron per 10^20 proton - electron pairs.
That's in rough agreement with electro-static forces being 10^21 times stronger than gravity for macro objects.

Now you want 'field density'. Which likely means the electric field, i.e. volts per metre.
For this, its normal to have another reference point. The ground is typically 300,000 V to the ionosphere to 300 million in high voltage storms. But relative to the core? I don't know the charge of the core, so I don't know the voltage. Perhaps though, it is possible to work out given that we know the force of gravity, and also the charge of Earth's surface. Will do this exercise soon.

TopCat wrote:For the sun to attract all the planets such that they remain in orbit, it must, in the Electric Gravity Universe, have an opposite charge to the planets.

No.
Are you aware of atomic theory?
Despite being electrically neutral, atoms will experience mutual attraction. e.g H2 , O2 O3
Its not straight forward why they do it, but roughly, the electrons in the atoms are attracted to the nuclei of all the atoms, hence atom systems often arrange themselves so electrons of different atoms can be near all the nuclei.

its like that with celestial bodies too.
The electrons in the sun are attracted to the protons In Earth
The protons in the sun are attracted to the electrons in Earth
The electrons in the Earth are attracted to the protons in the Sun
The protons in the Earth are attracted to the electrons in the Sun

The electric layout of a celestial body is similar to an atom, with positive charge concentrating in the core, while negative charge goes to the out layers and surface.

Before anyone continues here, you better back up those numbers. I'm not even going to waste the chalk on my chalkboard on numbers you pulled out of thin air.

Where the exercise in field density will get you is that it is trivial to create a local electrostatic field of a strength that would easily negate whatever it is you're selling. Why do we not see gravity negated in the presence of strong electrostatic fields?

Also, you have failed to explain why gravity is not polar while electrostatic fields are. Gravity can only attract. It has never been observed to do otherwise. Electrostatic fields, however, can either attract or repel.

This all completely ignores your baseless assertions that the core of our planet is neutronium.

The_Metatron wrote:

electricgravity1 wrote:Well its hot and high pressure down in the core. So much so that it squeezes electrons off their atoms...That's one main reason why the surface of the Earth is negatively charged.

There's a name what happens when this occurs: they are called neutron stars. Only possible with masses several times that of our sun.

Dude. You're not even trying.

No, a neutron star is when the electron gets squashed into the nucleus and likely requires billions of times more pressure than that found in the Earth's core. Here the electrons just get prized off the atom. That's called ionization.

Note, I had to stop myself from correcting this blunder straight away. Only fair to give you, or your RS buddies time to correct it yourself. But none of you noticed.

electricgravity1 wrote:...
The electric layout of a celestial body is similar to an atom, with positive charge concentrating in the core, while negative charge goes to the out layers and surface.

How did the Chelabynsk meteorite fragments (and others) reach the ground? Surely, the negative surface charge on the celestial bodies is repelled by the negative surface charge on the Earth. Why don't we see hovering meteors?

electricgravity1 wrote:

TopCat wrote:For the sun to attract all the planets such that they remain in orbit, it must, in the Electric Gravity Universe, have an opposite charge to the planets.

No.
Are you aware of atomic theory?

Yes, actually.

Despite being electrically neutral, atoms will experience mutual attraction. e.g H2 , O2 O3

So why not He2, then?

And why aren't the protons in the sun repelling the protons in the earth, and the electrons in the sun the electrons in the earth?

Why not do some actual calculations on electrostatic interactions between like and unlike charges at sun-planet distances?

If you had answers to any of these questions that didn't amount to a random sciency-sounding word salad, I might be more inclined to think that you're not a complete fucking moron.

The_Metatron wrote:Before anyone continues here, you better back up those numbers. I'm not even going to waste the chalk on my chalkboard on numbers you pulled out of thin air.

Erm, any particular number that strikes you as wrong? If you're a hardened scientist, you
- might have 1 or 2 committed to memory already , or are familiar with the numbers
- know offhand exactly how to rework them out
- enjoy working them out
- at your desktop can do it without even thinking, your fingers should dance to the numbers and math operators by themselves.

Where the exercise in field density will get you is that it is trivial to create a local electrostatic field of a strength that would easily negate whatever it is you're selling. Why do we not see gravity negated in the presence of strong electrostatic fields?

Because the interior of the Earth is a electron plasma that will move rapidly to compensate any excess electrostatic fields in the interior, at the surface, and beyound. I've already described this in a prior post. This compensation tends to yield a smooth inverse square attraction field.

Also, you have failed to explain why gravity is not polar while electrostatic fields are. Gravity can only attract. It has never been observed to do otherwise. Electrostatic fields, however, can either attract or repel.

I've already responded to this in a prior post.
I'll add electric forces just tend to create attraction between solid celestial objects. Electric repulsion tends to be confined to small objects and fluids. That is the nature of electric force.

Fucking jesus mary and mohammed, and I thought the flat earthers were bonkers. I withdraw the offer of a cuddle, although a cup of tea is still available.

The diagrams smell like a dirty sock to me.

The cause of gravity is space-time distortion in direct proportion to respective masses, and inverse proportion to the square of the distance separating the masses.

For this silly static electric thing to work, there would have to be an amazing set of Universal coincidences, whereby the relative static potential between any two given objects anywhere in known space would be PRECISELY the amount needed to give the impression that it isn't anything to do with static potential at all but simple mass attraction.

Occam would have something to say about this.

And Wolfgang Pauli would still be laughing his ass off.

electricgravity1 wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

electricgravity1 wrote:Well its hot and high pressure down in the core. So much so that it squeezes electrons off their atoms...That's one main reason why the surface of the Earth is negatively charged.

There's a name what happens when this occurs: they are called neutron stars. Only possible with masses several times that of our sun.

Dude. You're not even trying.

No, a neutron star is when the electron gets squashed into the nucleus and likely requires billions of times more pressure than that found in the Earth's core. Here the electrons just get prized off the atom. That's called ionization.

Note, I had to stop myself from correcting this blunder straight away. Only fair to give you, or your RS buddies time to correct it yourself. But none of you noticed.

Not your best back pedalling. You said "...its hot and high pressure down in the core. So much so that it squeezes electrons off their atoms." Now, all you're claiming is ionization? Sure. Ionization. But, the only mechanism you're proposing for this ionization is "squeezing"?

So, in your model, you're telling us that energies are sufficient in the earth's core to overcome the electromagnetic forces that keep electrons away from each other. Cool.

Apparently then, the matter in my body must have similar levels of energy. As we know, gravity exists between all matter. The earth, as well as my meat carcass. Are you telling me that 37 degrees C at a pressure of 1 atmosphere is sufficient to collapse matter beyond the limit of its electron shells? That's fucking cool.

So, another sock-of-shit bites the dust.

tolman wrote:So, another sock-of-shit bites the dust.

Who was he?

By the looks of his diagram it was newstein

Ah yes. Until that diagram, I was quite looking forward to his explanation of why Helium is monatomic.

felltoearth wrote:By the looks of his diagram it was newstein

That was obvious ages ago. I wonder what took so long.

Newstein is still only listed as being suspended, not banned - but I agree, it had his stench, and his simultaneous decent knowledge of science with his deliberate pretend belief in pseudoscientific trolling style.

Hopefully, if it was him, this will serve as evidence the next time his permaban as a troll is discussed. He's really rather blatant about it.

Ah, yes, just reviewed the FUA - assuming it was Newstein, creation of a sock while suspended would result in extension of his suspension by six months. Creation of a second sock would result in permaban.

So we might not see him around for a year (well, except in his hosiery incarnations, that is).

Arnold Layne wrote:

felltoearth wrote:By the looks of his diagram it was newstein

That was obvious ages ago. I wonder what took so long.

That was pretty much obvious from the get-go.

You goddamn guys sound like fortune tellers after the fact. You ought to clue us in about these things, and include why you suspect it.