Thread: Why was this ruled out?

With an atom there is a basic unit of matter consisting of a dense, central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons. I'm sure that there's a reason I just want to know why so I can put it behind me, but why is it we don't believe that the sun is possibly positively "charged" and the core of the earth/planets is negativly charged and the matter surrounding the core and everything on the planet is positively charged, etc... in the same manner as we know atoms/electrons/ions behave?

Originally Posted by deadcat

With an atom there is a basic unit of matter consisting of a dense, central nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively charged electrons. I'm sure that there's a reason I just want to know why so I can put it behind me, but why is it we don't believe that the sun is possibly positively "charged" and the core of the earth/planets is negativly charged and the matter surrounding the core and everything on the planet is positively charged, etc... in the same manner as we know atoms/electrons/ions behave?

Reason 1:
The electrostatic force is many many many times more powerful than gravity, so the planets would have to either orbit a lot faster or be a lot further from the Sun.

Reason 2. If the Sun were positive and the Earth negative, then the things attracted to the Earth(the Moon for instance) would have to be positive and repulsed by the Sun. But the Moon does not behave as if it were repulsed by the Sun. (Neither do space probes that we launch into space.)

Originally Posted by Janus

Reason 1:
The electrostatic force is many many many times more powerful than gravity, so the planets would have to either orbit a lot faster or be a lot further from the Sun.

well what about the cores of the planets/sun? That would make up for the strength of mass difference

Originally Posted by Janus

Reason 2. If the Sun were positive and the Earth negative, then the things attracted to the Earth(the Moon for instance) would have to be positive and repulsed by the Sun. But the Moon does not behave as if it were repulsed by the Sun. (Neither do space probes that we launch into space.)

can you give me an example of how we know they do not behave like this?

Here's an example of the idea I'm presenting:

Sun +/core
moon +/core -/outer layer
earth -/core +/outer layer

If the core of the moon (+) was attracted to the core of the earth (-) but the outer layers oppose eachother (-/+)(oppositely charged) and therefore the moons outer layer would be attracted to the sun (+) and the earther outer layer would be repelled by the sun (+), but the bond between the earth (-) and the moon (+) is greater than the moon (-) and the sun (+) b/c the core bond (Earth/Moon) is stronger than the outer layer bond (Earth/Moon). It would just be a matter of determining the mathematics behind the mass of each item, and how charged (+ / -) they are. Just as with atoms for different elements the posibilities for this are endless.

I appreciate the response, btw.

If the core of the moon was attracted to the core of the earth but the outer layers oppose eachother (oppositely charged) and therefore would be attracted to the sun. It would just be a matter of determining the mathematics behind the mass of each item, and how charged (+ / -) they are. Just as with atoms for different elements the posibilities for this are endless.

If the outer layers of the moon oppose each other, you'll be left with only a positively-charged moon, since the outer layers will rapidly expand away from each other, meaning the moon will eventually orbit the sun.

You may not know this, but the moon is actually moving away from the Earth; it is now farther away from us than it was at the end of the Cretaceous period. If electrostatics was indeed the reason, why then is the moon actually moving off? The electric charges should keep it stable for a longer time, don't you think? That is Janus' second reason covered.

Also, there is one prediction of this theory that means that it incorrect. Now, the sun and the planets would have to have pretty powerful charges to be attracted. Consider, then, the enormous attraction or repulsion an object would have if it gained even a tiny charge.

Since the charges would have to be huge to maintain strong attraction even across the vast distance between the Sun and the planets, you can imagine just how strong Earth's charge would be. Now consider the situation if, say, a comb gained a tiny charge: it would either be pinned to the ground so strongly that you would never be able to lift it up, or fly away into the sun. Since that doesn't happen, I think you can forget the idea that the planets are attracted to each other be electrostatic charges.

There was no massive electrical discharge that utterly destroyed moonlanders from earth when they touched the moon.

IIRC, the earth is negatively charged. You can measure this in several ways: the effect on protons or electrons, of which the charge is known absolute (other objects would have a more or less zero potential difference relative to earth, which means there is an absolute charge), or you could directly measure the electrical field that results from every electrical charge.

You can probably find sources with the exact charge of the earth and perhaps other planets/the moon/the sun. I thought it seems rather large, somewhere around , but spread over the entire planet, it's not really impressive.

Originally Posted by deadcat

Originally Posted by Janus

Reason 1:
The electrostatic force is many many many times more powerful than gravity, so the planets would have to either orbit a lot faster or be a lot further from the Sun.

well what about the cores of the planets/sun? That would make up for the strength of mass difference

Originally Posted by Janus

Reason 2. If the Sun were positive and the Earth negative, then the things attracted to the Earth(the Moon for instance) would have to be positive and repulsed by the Sun. But the Moon does not behave as if it were repulsed by the Sun. (Neither do space probes that we launch into space.)

can you give me an example of how we know they do not behave like this?

Here's an example of the idea I'm presenting:

Sun +/core
moon +/core -/outer layer
earth -/core +/outer layer

If the core of the moon (+) was attracted to the core of the earth (-) but the outer layers oppose eachother (-/+)(oppositely charged) and therefore the moons outer layer would be attracted to the sun (+) and the earther outer layer would be repelled by the sun (+), but the bond between the earth (-) and the moon (+) is greater than the moon (-) and the sun (+) b/c the core bond (Earth/Moon) is stronger than the outer layer bond (Earth/Moon). It would just be a matter of determining the mathematics behind the mass of each item, and how charged (+ / -) they are. Just as with atoms for different elements the posibilities for this are endless.

I appreciate the response, btw.

You can't just pick and choose what parts attract and repel like that. For instance, at the separation distance of the Earth and Moon, the effects of the plus and minus charges would tend to cancel each other out. So any effect seen would be the result of any excess charge of one or the other. So for instance, If the Earth/moon bond allows for them to be attracted, then the Earth has a net negative charge and the Moon a net positive charge. The Moon would then also have a net postive charge as seen by the Sun and it would be repelled by the Sun, not attracted to it. IOW, if the charge of the Moon's core is enough to overcome the surface repulsion of the Earth's and Moon's surfaces, then it is enough to overcome the Moon's surface attraction to the Sun.

There is just no way that you can arrange positive and negative charges to get the dynamics we see in the Solar system.

Originally Posted by deadcat

Originally Posted by Janus

Reason 1:
The electrostatic force is many many many times more powerful than gravity, so the planets would have to either orbit a lot faster or be a lot further from the Sun.

well what about the cores of the planets/sun? That would make up for the strength of mass difference

Originally Posted by Janus

Reason 2. If the Sun were positive and the Earth negative, then the things attracted to the Earth(the Moon for instance) would have to be positive and repulsed by the Sun. But the Moon does not behave as if it were repulsed by the Sun. (Neither do space probes that we launch into space.)

can you give me an example of how we know they do not behave like this?

Spacecraft landing on other planets.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Originally Posted by deadcat

Originally Posted by Janus

Reason 1:
The electrostatic force is many many many times more powerful than gravity, so the planets would have to either orbit a lot faster or be a lot further from the Sun.

well what about the cores of the planets/sun? That would make up for the strength of mass difference

Originally Posted by Janus

Reason 2. If the Sun were positive and the Earth negative, then the things attracted to the Earth(the Moon for instance) would have to be positive and repulsed by the Sun. But the Moon does not behave as if it were repulsed by the Sun. (Neither do space probes that we launch into space.)

can you give me an example of how we know they do not behave like this?

Spacecraft landing on other planets.

this is a really good point, but gravity changes based on the planets/distance from sun and other factors, but I can see how we'd use this in testing gravity vs. a electrostatic force, and I'm sure this has been verified over and over, just like everything tested in science. What about on a larger scale, any of you guys think it's possible for something like this on a larger scale (galaxies, or more) rather than just gravity? Isn't electrostatic force infinite as well as gravity? Also anyone got a good link for info on black holes?

Originally Posted by Janus

You can't just pick and choose what parts attract and repel like that.

I know, there'd be TONS of math involved, I was just using them as examples. With the right math involved you can do this but overall (but then again with the right math, a theory of the world being flat can exist), it was probably to impractical, I don't know why this was ruled out. What gave me this idea is atoms behave somewhat similar (but overall much different) but maybe when we can see a large enough part of the universe, there may be a chance it behaves similarly(just an opinion, I don't have a referencer for this or anything) may be a better path to choose instead of dark matter (but then again, I'm no expert). I feel dark matter is science's form of creationism/ID (we don't know what it is so it must be this)

except for nobody claims to know what dark matter is, and very few people claim to.

If we called it 'the unknown' would it be better?

The difference is, they try to find out, instead of avoid finding anything new that might disagree with you.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

except for nobody claims to know what dark matter is, and very few people claim to.

If we called it 'the unknown' would it be better?

The difference is, they try to find out, instead of avoid finding anything new that might disagree with you.

you're right, I didn't realize this ("except for nobody claims to know what dark matter is, and very few people claim to.") that makes much more sense when you present it as "the unknown"

I wonder if this is kind of like natural magnets. They have a + side, and a - side, and if you cut a magnet in half it becomes 2 magnets each with + and - sides.

What if, instead of talking about the surface and the core of the Moon and Earth as discreet entities, we consider the possibility of a continuous differentiation of charge taking place all the way from the outer edge to the inner core, with the core being very strongly one charge, and the outer edge being very strongly the other?

Also, neither end need be absolutely charged in either way, just more strongly one way, or more strongly the other. Is it possible that one charge prefers to accumulate at the core, and the other prefers to accumulate at the outer edge? Or maybe the core is mostly neutral, while the outer edge has a bias?

(A neutral core would make sense, because if an object is charged more + or -, the more abundant charge *would* tend to accumulate on its outer edge, wouldn't it?)

Originally Posted by kojax

I wonder if this is kind of like natural magnets. They have a + side, and a - side, and if you cut a magnet in half it becomes 2 magnets each with + and - sides.

What if, instead of talking about the surface and the core of the Moon and Earth as discreet entities, we consider the possibility of a continuous differentiation of charge taking place all the way from the outer edge to the inner core, with the core being very strongly one charge, and the outer edge being very strongly the other?

Also, neither end need be absolutely charged in either way, just more strongly one way, or more strongly the other. Is it possible that one charge prefers to accumulate at the core, and the other prefers to accumulate at the outer edge? Or maybe the core is mostly neutral, while the outer edge has a bias?

(A neutral core would make sense, because if an object is charged more + or -, the more abundant charge *would* tend to accumulate on its outer edge, wouldn't it?)

The earth does have magnetic poles too. Plus this is pretty much how atoms behave. I wonder if it's possible to create a miniture model of the solor system using magnets to see if it would work? Probably be better for a computer program to do though. The thing that bugs me about this though if it were true, with all the math and everything I'm sure it would have been noticed by now. Would there still be a need for the mysterious "dark matter" if this was the case? Looks like I'll be heading to the old wiki for a while (when I get to work and am being paid for it, lol), I'm gonna start by looking into magnets, see what I can find. After all, the answers I'm looking for are probably right there.

From a distance, the pull from one pole and the push from the other cancel out. Magnets and electricity are very closely related. The simple fact that you can lift a magnet off the ground shows that the Earth isn't a very strong magnet. In fact, it takes the entire Earth pulling on both ends of a compass needle to turn it, and that's after most sources of friction have been carefully removed (hanging by a string, suspended in oil, etc). (The same can be said about charged particles not suddenly being pulled up/down.)

Originally Posted by MagiMaster

From a distance, the pull from one pole and the push from the other cancel out. Magnets and electricity are very closely related. The simple fact that you can lift a magnet off the ground shows that the Earth isn't a very strong magnet. In fact, it takes the entire Earth pulling on both ends of a compass needle to turn it, and that's after most sources of friction have been carefully removed (hanging by a string, suspended in oil, etc). (The same can be said about charged particles not suddenly being pulled up/down.)

True but if the core or poles were the main source of magnetic energy it wouldn't have a very strong affect on magnets anyways, however, everything on the planet has a very strong force attracting everything on it to the earth (gravity)

I feel this also somewhat supports the magnetic earth theory:
(again I know gravity is the cause I just want to be able to logically rule this out)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#...ng_conventions

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The north pole of the magnet is the pole which, when the magnet is freely suspended, points towards the Earth's magnetic north pole in northern Canada. Since opposite poles (north and south) attract whereas like poles (north and north, or south and south) repel, the Earth's present geographic north is thus actually its magnetic south. Confounding the situation further, the Earth's magnetic field has reversed itself many times in the distant past.
As a practical matter, in order to tell which pole of a magnet is north and which is south, it is not necessary to use the earth's magnetic field at all. For example, one calibration method would be to compare it to an electromagnet, whose poles can be identified by the right-hand rule.

Not to mention you can take a magnet to the dirt and run it through, several pieces of grey material will be stuck to the magnet, I think is called iron ore? This would also show the earth has magnetic properties.

I'm thinking another possibility may be if we want to look at it as an electrical effect, but imagine that the Earth, Moon, and other planets all have a slight bias toward one charge or the other.

Wouldn't the excess charge tend to migrate toward the outer edges?

Thought experiment:

---------------------------------------------------

Imagine a balloon full of water, with negative ions mixed in. The ions will tend to accumulate around the outer edge, because they want to be as far away from each other as possible. It's not a super strong tendency, but the outer edge should still be slightly more negative than the inner core.

Now, lets imagine 2 such balloons come into the same vicinity as each other. Again the negative ions will tend to accumulate around the outer edge, but this time it will also include a tendency to migrate toward the outer edge of the 2 balloon system.

The portions of the surface areas closest to each other, of the 2 balloons will become more neutral.

---------------------------------------------------------

Now , the question: Does the desire of each balloon to become more neutral outweigh the fact that both balloons each have a net negative charge?

From balloon #1's perspective, the neutral part of balloon #2 is closer than the negative part of balloon #2. So, attracting the neutral part of balloon #2 would increase balloon #1's neutrality, but attracting the negative part of balloon #2 will increase balloon #1's negativity. However.... the negative part is further away.

Originally Posted by kojax

I'm thinking another possibility may be if we want to look at it as an electrical effect, but imagine that the Earth, Moon, and other planets all have a slight bias toward one charge or the other.

Wouldn't the excess charge tend to migrate toward the outer edges?

Thought experiment:

---------------------------------------------------

Imagine a balloon full of water, with negative ions mixed in. The ions will tend to accumulate around the outer edge, because they want to be as far away from each other as possible. It's not a super strong tendency, but the outer edge should still be slightly more negative than the inner core.

Now, lets imagine 2 such balloons come into the same vicinity as each other. Again the negative ions will tend to accumulate around the outer edge, but this time it will also include a tendency to migrate toward the outer edge of the 2 balloon system.

The portions of the surface areas closest to each other, of the 2 balloons will become more neutral.

---------------------------------------------------------

Now , the question: Does the desire of each balloon to become more neutral outweigh the fact that both balloons each have a net negative charge?

From balloon #1's perspective, the neutral part of balloon #2 is closer than the negative part of balloon #2. So, attracting the neutral part of balloon #2 would increase balloon #1's neutrality, but attracting the negative part of balloon #2 will increase balloon #1's negativity. However.... the negative part is further away.

Wow, good point check this out too, from when I wiki'd mars:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Although Mars has no intrinsic magnetic field, observations show that parts of the planet's crust have been magnetized and that alternating polarity reversals of its dipole field have occurred. This paleomagnetism of magnetically susceptible minerals has properties that are very similar to the alternating bands found on the ocean floors of Earth. One theory, published in 1999 and re-examined in October 2005 (with the help of the Mars Global Surveyor), is that these bands demonstrate plate tectonics on Mars 4 billion years ago, before the planetary dynamo ceased to function and caused the planet's magnetic field to fade away.

so if that's the case then when thinking of this in terms of a "magnet effect" it would then affect the orbit. So I looked into this, on the same wiki page, it went on to say:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Mars

Mars has a relatively pronounced orbital eccentricity of about 0.09; of the seven other planets in the Solar System, only Mercury shows greater eccentricity. However, it is known that in the past Mars has had a much more circular orbit than it does currently.

The thing is, if only this "magnet effect" was causing it to orbit the sun that would mean the orbit would stop altogether. However, the core of Mars is still made of Iron, maybe that would be a sufficient explaination? Maybe not, I don't know, but after all, magnets attract regular metal too. I was thinking what I can do to look into this further so I went on to look into Mar's gravity, after all the gravity would have to be heavily affected if the planet has been "demagnitized" (according to this theory atleast) let's see what wiki says:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Mars - Physical Characteristics

Mars has approximately half the radius of Earth. It is less dense than Earth, having about 15% of Earth's volume and 11% of the mass. Its surface area is only slightly less than the total area of Earth's dry land.[5] While Mars is larger and more massive than Mercury, Mercury has a higher density. This results in a slightly stronger gravitational force at Mercury's surface. Mars is also roughly intermediate in size, mass, and surface gravity between Earth and Earth's Moon (the Moon is about half the diameter of Mars, whereas Earth is twice; the Earth is about ten times more massive than Mars, and the Moon ten times less massive). The red-orange appearance of the Martian surface is caused by iron(III) oxide, more commonly known as hematite, or rust

ok, still a some what strong gravitational force. Now the Iron issue is really throwing me off though as far as making this solidly disproved, I'm getting tired of researching now though, guess what's next is looking into wheter or not non-metalic meteors have their own gravity, b/c the fact that meteors orbit could still possibly mean that it's being affected by the metal at the core of the object it is orbiting, as everything affected by gravity would be in this theory, similar to how a magnet can magnetize a metal object, but then again, the meteor/asteroid etc... could have been in some orbit at some time. But this would also throw out there that organic material can become charged, either - or +, chemical bonds show us an attraction between organic non-metalic objects can occur, but I'll look into all that next time.

Moderator, can we move this mumbo-jumbo to pseudoscience please. It won't be so laughable there.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Moderator, can we move this mumbo-jumbo to pseudoscience please. It won't be so laughable there.

lol, not this guy again. Are you following me or something?

I assume your still displeased about our mars direct conversation?

By the way, by definition this isn't psuedoscience:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology,lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia - Scientific method

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

So as you can see we are doing everything possible to follow this scientific method, and therefore by definition isn't psuedoscience. So, do you care to apologize to the posters of this thread? Or are you just going to keep follow me around requesting all my threads be moved?

Originally Posted by deadcat

lol, not this guy again. Are you following me or something?

Regardless of whether the movement of planets and stars is governed by gravity or magnetism, the world does not revolve around you. This is a public forum and I look at most of the threads in most of the sub-forums. When I see nonsense I comment on it.

Originally Posted by deadcat

I assume your still displeased about our mars direct conversation?

Please. You had your ass handed to you on a platter there and you ran away, completely unable to respond to a single point. I'm disappointed you didn't even have the gumption to attempt a defence of your whimsical misunderstandings, but displeased .... no. Amused? Yes.

Your ideas are so off centre they aren't even wrong. They qualify as pseudoscience because there is no evidence for them, they offer no improvement over current theories, there is plenty of evidence against them. As an amusing intellectual exercise I applaud the discussion. As serious science, well, get serious. It isn't. Hence my request.

Originally Posted by deadcat

Or are you just going to keep follow me around requesting all my threads be moved?

I don't pay much attention to who is posting, but to what is posted. If I see nonsense, I'll comment. Stop posting nonsense and I won't comment adversely on your posts. Post interesting observations and I'll comment favourably. It's your choice.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Moderator, can we move this mumbo-jumbo to pseudoscience please. It won't be so laughable there.

As long as the person is genuinely interested in hearing what real science has to say, they're not necessarily a kook. He asked the original question because he honestly doesn't know, and if the only answer you're going to give is that he's wrong because "somebody said" instead of that he's wrong and you're going to explain to him why (as long as he's willing to listen), then maybe *you* are the one who's not contributing to the discussion.


This discussion is still very much alive. It was very quickly pointed out to deadcat that there's no way the Earth, Moon, and etc being oppositely charged could explain anything about gravity, but then he revised the theory a little bit, and Janus pointed out why it didn't work:

Originally Posted by Janus

Originally Posted by deadcat

Originally Posted by Janus

Reason 1:
The electrostatic force is many many many times more powerful than gravity, so the planets would have to either orbit a lot faster or be a lot further from the Sun.

well what about the cores of the planets/sun? That would make up for the strength of mass difference

Originally Posted by Janus

Reason 2. If the Sun were positive and the Earth negative, then the things attracted to the Earth(the Moon for instance) would have to be positive and repulsed by the Sun. But the Moon does not behave as if it were repulsed by the Sun. (Neither do space probes that we launch into space.)

can you give me an example of how we know they do not behave like this?

Here's an example of the idea I'm presenting:

Sun +/core
moon +/core -/outer layer
earth -/core +/outer layer

If the core of the moon (+) was attracted to the core of the earth (-) but the outer layers oppose eachother (-/+)(oppositely charged) and therefore the moons outer layer would be attracted to the sun (+) and the earther outer layer would be repelled by the sun (+), but the bond between the earth (-) and the moon (+) is greater than the moon (-) and the sun (+) b/c the core bond (Earth/Moon) is stronger than the outer layer bond (Earth/Moon). It would just be a matter of determining the mathematics behind the mass of each item, and how charged (+ / -) they are. Just as with atoms for different elements the posibilities for this are endless.

I appreciate the response, btw.

You can't just pick and choose what parts attract and repel like that. For instance, at the separation distance of the Earth and Moon, the effects of the plus and minus charges would tend to cancel each other out. So any effect seen would be the result of any excess charge of one or the other. So for instance, If the Earth/moon bond allows for them to be attracted, then the Earth has a net negative charge and the Moon a net positive charge. The Moon would then also have a net postive charge as seen by the Sun and it would be repelled by the Sun, not attracted to it. IOW, if the charge of the Moon's core is enough to overcome the surface repulsion of the Earth's and Moon's surfaces, then it is enough to overcome the Moon's surface attraction to the Sun.

There is just no way that you can arrange positive and negative charges to get the dynamics we see in the Solar system.

And then Bender pointed out that the Earth is slightly biased toward negative charge:

Originally Posted by Bender

There was no massive electrical discharge that utterly destroyed moonlanders from earth when they touched the moon.

IIRC, the earth is negatively charged. You can measure this in several ways: the effect on protons or electrons, of which the charge is known absolute (other objects would have a more or less zero potential difference relative to earth, which means there is an absolute charge), or you could directly measure the electrical field that results from every electrical charge.

You can probably find sources with the exact charge of the earth and perhaps other planets/the moon/the sun. I thought it seems rather large, somewhere around , but spread over the entire planet, it's not really impressive.

And, since we know that charges like to distribute themselves, deadcat's theory becomes plausible again. (Well, plausible enough to make for interesting discussion... at least...not necessarily super credible.) In a slightly electronegative body, there's a tendency for the charge to distribute more or less kind of like deadcat is suggesting, with the core being more neutral than the outer edge.

When planets approach each other, that charge would redistribute again, this time with the negative portion beginning to migrate toward the parts of the planets facing away from each other, leaving the nearest parts more neutral. Well, electronegative materials are weakly attracted to electro-neutral materials.

So the question is: if the electronegative portion is further away, and the electro-neutral portion is slightly closer, then does the fact the neutral part is closer make its attraction stronger than the negative part's repulsion?


Where deadcat is kind of dragging on right now is that he's focusing too much on magnetism: Magnetism is the result of moving electric charges. It's way too complicated of an effect to be the cause of planetary motion, because planetary motion is simpler than that. If there's anything to this theory, it's in the electrical effects, not the magnetic ones.

Originally Posted by kojax

As long as the person is genuinely interested in hearing what real science has to say, they're not necessarily a kook.

I have accused no one of being a kook. I have not implied that anyone is a kook. I have directed my comments to the ideas being discussed.

Originally Posted by kojax

He asked the original question because he honestly doesn't know, and if the only answer you're going to give is that he's wrong because "somebody said" instead of that he's wrong and you're going to explain to him why (as long as he's willing to listen), then maybe *you* are the one who's not contributing to the discussion. .

I have made no claim that I have contributed to the discussion, or wish to contribute to the discussion. The discussion holds some interest for me as an observer, but because the premise is badly flawed it belongs in pseudoscience.

Many of the corrections of deadcat's incorrect understanding have been accompanied with flights of fancy that again are fun within pseudoscience, but have no place in Physics.

If there's anything to this theory, it's in the electrical effects, not the magnetic ones.

And then you compound the problem by using the layperson's definition of theory. A wild speculation is not a theory.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I have accused no one of being a kook.

Originally Posted by http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kook

n. Slang
A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy.

I think this is exactly what you were trying to say, still displeased from getting your ass handed to you on a platter, unable to respond to a single point. using your self described shotty memory as a referrence, I'd say that's more in the range of psuedoscience. All you did was list books that I have no way of obtaining, not even a scentence out of them to credit your claims. Making it extremly difficult to hand someone their ass on a platter. Being bitter with envy you saught out to find my posts and try to reinitiate a failed dispute on your part, in a futile way to try and win back your manhood. Your attempt to get this subject moved with a "laughable" attidute alone proves this. Need I remind you of that too:

Originally Posted by John Galt

Moderator, can we move this mumbo-jumbo to pseudoscience please. It won't be so laughable there.

again your prejudice becomes apparent:

Originally Posted by John Galt

Many of the corrections of deadcat's incorrect understanding have been accompanied with flights of fancy that again are fun within pseudoscience, but have no place in Physics.

Now, do I really need to refer you to my initial post, or do you want to go strait to the refference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics...entific_Method

Now please, lets put the whole Mars direct issue to rest. And quit letting it influence your post on my threads.

Originally Posted by kojax

If there's anything to this theory, it's in the electrical effects, not the magnetic ones.

Yeah that's what I was starting to think, although there is a magnetic effect, possibly on a larger scale (solar system etc..., and even then, not the entire effect) it's become obvious this does not have a significant effect on smaller objects (organics, water, most rocks, etc...) it would need to be some kind of charge, or bond to give this theory probability.

I want to point out that both gravity, and the electric effect both need GR in order to make sense of them. They're similar to the point where they even both posit virtual particles as being part of their operation. (Electricity posits "virtual photons", and gravity posits "gravitons")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity Under "Gravity and quantum mechanics"

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics.[19] It is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces, such that the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.[20][21] This reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length,[22] where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required. Many believe the complete theory to be string theory,[23] or more currently M Theory.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Many of the corrections of deadcat's incorrect understanding have been accompanied with flights of fancy that again are fun within pseudoscience, but have no place in Physics.

If there's anything to this theory, it's in the electrical effects, not the magnetic ones.

And then you compound the problem by using the layperson's definition of theory. A wild speculation is not a theory.

Well, the idea that gravity might be an electrical effect of some kind, or derive from electrical effects is certainly not pseudo-science. As far as I'm aware, that is considered to be a very strong possibility.

It's the details of the OP's theory that are wildly speculative. However, he's continually allowed them to be shot down as often as people have pointed out the errors in them.

Deadcat,
you made claims about Mars Direct that were demonstrably false.
1. You claimed it was a colonisation plan. It is not.
2. You claimed it involved the use of a space elevator. It does not.

I provided links that address these points. You claim you cannot access these. The book by Zubrin, the author of the Mars Direct concept, is available through any book store, public library, or via on-line purchase through a company such as Amazon. At least one of the referenced papers is available on-line. The others could be obtained through your local university. The website link is, curiously, a website.

You seem to be unaware that when claims are made that are likely to be challenged they should be backed up by references that are more than the recollection of some documentary. (At the very least the title of the documentary should be offered.)

When presented with the extensive references and other data and arguments you ran away. Now I have no attention of putting the Mars Direct issue aside as long as you continute to make inaccurate claims about it. You began this debate by a snide attack on Lynx Fox who had pointed out some inaccuracies in your posts. Accept that you were incorrect and we can move forward.

And, to repeat, I have no desire to follow you around correcting you, but I shall correct any post I believe to be faulty and I shall expect any post of mine to be corrected by those more knowledgeable on specific points. My request that this thread be moved has no connection with your mistakes in the Mars Direct thread. We'll get on a lot better if you understand I attack ignorance, not the ignorant.

Being bitter with envy you saught...

Originally Posted by kojax

I want to point out that both gravity, and the electric effect both need GR in order to make sense of them. They're similar to the point where they even both posit virtual particles as being part of their operation.

Kojax, I am not disputing that each of the four fundamental forces operate through the exchange of particles. That hardly validates an attempt to explain planetary orbits by magnetism. Nor do the miniscule effects of charge carried by various planetary bodies in any way match the observed magnitudes of effects that deadcat appears to be trying to assign to them.

I wish you well with your attempts to educate him. My efforts in that department failed abyssmally. When he is ready to apologise I shall take him off ignore. I'll leave this thread now so it can get back on topic.

Originally Posted by John Galt

That hardly validates an attempt to explain planetary orbits by magnetism.

Didn't we move past magnetism a few post back.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by kojax

Quoting Wikipedia:

Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that general relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics.[19] It is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces, such that the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.[20][21] This reproduces general relativity in the classical limit. However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length,[22] where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required. Many believe the complete theory to be string theory,[23] or more currently M Theory.

Crazy, I was just going through that same article. I was going to say that this part seems worth looking into:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

However, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length,[22] where a more complete theory of quantum gravity (or a new approach to quantum mechanics) is required.

Sounds like there's a lot more work to be done in the field of quantum mechanics/quantum gravity.