I believe Bob Ham is very much correct in this conclusion. However, I got a strong feeling that the electric universe paradigm is correct and that Bob Ham's refutation is only correct in that there is something fundamental that has not yet been discovered. Quite clearly, some key relationship is eluding us. Gravity has been stubbornly difficult to incorporate into any electrical model.
My guess is that there must be some undiscovered relationship between mass and charge. The evidence for a strong correlation between capacitance and gravity are there. This is laid out in my essay on the subject titled The Gravity Mystery. It is also abundantly clear that gravity and mass are intimately linked. Once these relationships are fully understood, it will no doubt be possible to derive Newton's formula from something more fundamental.
However, until this fundamental discovery is made we may just as well use Newton's formula, with the optional addition of a repelling force due to the supposed dipole nature of gravity. To make a distinction between Newton's formula and the derived formula supposed to exist, we can use the following notation:
F = G() * Mg(q1)Mg(q2)/r^2 - k*q1q2/r^3
Where G() is the gravitational constant derived from some underlying physics (parameters unknown), Mg() is a function of gravitational mass based on charge, q1 is the charge of body 1, q2 is the charge of body 2, r is the distance between the bodies, and k is a constant used in calibrating the repelling force.
Note: I have since resolved this problem in my book on physics. Gravity is explained as an imbalance in the electric force. If there's a minuscule difference between the attracting and repelling force, gravity emerges as a natural consequence. Furthermore, there's a repelling electrostatic force between astronomic object which are all negatively charged at their surface. This adds stability to orbits.
 |
| Attracting gravitational force and repelling electric force |
Bob Ham's equations deal only with the electrostatic force. Like you I feel that there is an explanation within EUT.
ReplyDeleteThings that do not seem to be considered is the current of the solar wind, the current passing through Birkeland currents, how current may be affected by magnetospheres and plasma. And how does the magnetosphere play into all this?
Also his equations are based upon the charge of earth's physical surface. How would the equations work out if instead he used the surface area of the ionosphere? His equations suggest far too much charge on Earth's surface, spread that "surface area" out to the ionosphere and it may reduce the charge. Or how does the atmosphere affect charge considering that it is plasma in dark mode.
I just had this thought while proofreading what I wrote. What if Earth's orbit and spin for that matter are the product of a vortex? You have seen the video of Anthony Peratt's where he simulated the development of a galaxy using only Birkeland currents. The two currents rotate around each other forming a spiral galaxy. If I put a ping pong ball in a container with liquid as well as add a mechanism to rapidly stir that liquid at the center the resulting vortex would cause the ping pong ball to orbit this center at a point relative to its mass. Imagine the sun as the eye of a vortex and the heliosphere(plasma) as the liquid. Along this lines, Earth's spin may be the product of the twisting Birkeland currents.
The more I look into this, the more convinced I become that inertia and gravity are closely related electrical phenomena. I have come to the conclusion that charge locked into matter produce inertia and gravity in much the same way charge in motion produce electricity and magnetism.
Delete