Electromagnetism or Gravity which force is primarily governing the STAR-SOL system?

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Let me ask you this if I may.

What force holds an electron equidistant to the nucleus of an atom, or equidistant to another ring of electrons, or equidistant to one another within the ring?

Electromagnetism or Gravity or both?

As in the micro so in the macro.

Electrons are in "orbit" around a large "mass" (by comparison).

God Bless,




posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElohimJD
I believe Gravity and EM go hand and hand and need each other to produce stability within any given system. Ruling out EM or Gravity is foolish IMO.
God Bless,


Accepted data and 1 agrees
Thank you ElohimJD for your input within the thread. Yes 1 believes they to are interconnected parts of the same mechanism.

God Bless you as well



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElohimJD
a reply to: wildespace

Let me ask you this if I may.

What force holds an electron equidistant to the nucleus of an atom, or equidistant to another ring of electrons, or equidistant to one another within the ring?

Electromagnetism or Gravity or both?

As in the micro so in the macro.

Electrons are in "orbit" around a large "mass" (by comparison).

God Bless,


The answers are part of the school curriculum, and are also freely available on the Internet.

Electrons do not orbit the nucleus like planets orbiting the Sun. They exist as a "probability cloud" around the nucleus, ocuppying discreet energy levels; and the forces involved are electric, not gravitational. The nucleus isn't massive enough to affect electrons gravitationally. The "Pauli exclusion principle" prevents electrons from overlapping each other as they move around nucleus.

Wikipedia is as good place to start as any:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

If an electron absorbs a photon, it "jumps" to a higher orbital. That doesn't happen to planets which are ruled by gravity.
edit on 11-7-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: ElohimJD
a reply to: wildespace

Let me ask you this if I may.

What force holds an electron equidistant to the nucleus of an atom, or equidistant to another ring of electrons, or equidistant to one another within the ring?

Electromagnetism or Gravity or both?

As in the micro so in the macro.

Electrons are in "orbit" around a large "mass" (by comparison).

God Bless,


The answers are part of the school curriculum, and are also freely available on the Internet.

Electrons do not orbit the nucleus like planets orbiting the Sun. They exist as a "probability cloud" around the nucleus, ocuppying discreet energy levels; and the forces involved are electric, not gravitational. The nucleus isn't massive enough to affect electrons gravitationally. The "Pauli exclusion principle" prevents electrons from overlapping each other as they move around nucleus.

Wikipedia is as good place to start as any:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

If an electron absorbs a photon, it "jumps" to a higher orbital. That doesn't happen to planets which are ruled by gravity.

From your source:

"Many physical phenomena involve electrons in an essential role, such as electricity, magnetism, and thermal conductivity, and they also participate in gravitational, electromagnetic and weak interactions"



"By 1914, experiments by physicists Ernest Rutherford, Henry Moseley, James Franck and Gustav Hertz had largely established the structure of an atom as a dense nucleus of positive charge surrounded by lower-mass electrons.[41] In 1913, Danish physicist Niels Bohr postulated that electrons resided in quantized energy states, with the energy determined by the angular momentum of the electron's orbits about the nucleus."


Still claiming the atomic reference invalid. That electrons do not "orbit" a nucleus and that the "forces involved are electric and not gravitational". It might be such a small amount of gravity that other forces (i.e. photons) can overrule them, but everything with mass has gravity, and atoms have mass. To use one and not the other is foolish IMO.

"angular momentum of orbits" sounds like it directly applies to the Solar System gravity model to me.

But what do I know, I don't talk down to others so I must be stupid and missed standard school curriculum right?

God Bless,
edit on 11-7-2014 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ElohimJD

a reply to: ElohimJD

It's pretty easy to calculate the forces between an electron and proton. Let's assume you have those two particles at a distance if one angstrom from each other. The electrical attraction between the two particles would be 2.30*10^-7 N. The gravitational force between the two particles would be 1.01*10^-47 N. So the electrical force between the two particles is 22,770,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than the gravitational force between them. In other words, the gravitational force is negligible.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: nataylor

Thank you nataylor, I think that should answer ElohimJD's questions. While anything that has mass exerts gravitational effect, for subatomic particles gravitational forces are incredibly small, and electrostatic forces are a lot more influencial. Electrons are negatively charged; protons are positively charged. This creates attraction, which keeps electrons around the nucleus.

In fact, when planets and asteroids form out of space dust, the clumping of atoms and molecules together happens due to electrostatic forces (think dust bunnies), and only when the clumps are massive enough, gravitational force starts attracting them together into even more massive clumps.

~~~

I'm not talking down to anyone, just saying that this should be common knowledge. I didn't do that well at school myself, but the information about basic physics is out there on the Internet.



posted on Jul, 11 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: nataylor
a reply to: ElohimJD

a reply to: ElohimJD

It's pretty easy to calculate the forces between an electron and proton. Let's assume you have those two particles at a distance if one angstrom from each other. The electrical attraction between the two particles would be 2.30*10^-7 N. The gravitational force between the two particles would be 1.01*10^-47 N. So the electrical force between the two particles is 22,770,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than the gravitational force between them. In other words, the gravitational force is negligible.

You have an electron and a proton; then you have the neutron (or the neutralizer of both). Apply this to "your reason for being" and you will gain/grok all answers.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
You have an electron and a proton; then you have the neutron (or the neutralizer of both). Apply this to "your reason for being" and you will gain/grok all answers.

What's this even supposed to mean? What reason for being?

Neutrons don't neutralise electrons or protons. They serve to bind the protons in the nucleus via the nuclear force, preventing the positively charged protons from repelling each other away. By the way, neutrons themselves consist of positively and negatively charged quarks, but their total charge in a neutron is zero.

Perhaps, before people get their own ideas about the physics and the way the universe works, they should familiarise themselves with the decades' worth of research and experimentation that had already been performed and forms the standard model. If someone thinks standard model is wrong, let's see their maths, experiments, peer-reviewed scientific papers.

By the way, I've noticed a peculiar irony: this thread started with a suggestion that the celestial motion is due to electromagnetism rather than gravity, but now the motion and positions of electrons is apparently due to gravity and not electromagnetism.
edit on 12-7-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
What about magnetics?



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13


Q-1
If this is possibly what is going on then can another large celestial body or large mass containing celestial body interfere with another large celestial body or large mass containing celestial bodies STAR system from afar before in visual or observation distance?
Q-2
And what would be the evidence to look for as the two or more EM possessing celestial bodies EM fields (& systems) began to come in contact with each other. (maybe they play dodge/volley ball) on a cosmic level... w/?


This is the very question that started my mind peculating in grade school. I was taught it was a combination of gravity and centrifugal force that kept the planets in place. Rather than blindly accept this explanation, I rejected it. Being in grade school I could hardly offer any data or evidence to support my rejection. If it were gravity, I thought, just as you have brought up, all planets would eventually pull themselves together to the strongest gravitational force. If it were centrifugal force, all planets would throw themselves out of their perspective "Race Track Ring".

How does one balance the differing gravities against a common centrifugal force? You cant, as all planets do not have the same gravitational pull, or mass weight. Then what ever force is used to "Hold" each planet in its place, must be unique to the planetary body. It can be nothing else. So no to Q1

The evidence for Q2? You would see all the planets of a given solar system moving closer to its sun, until they all merged. All planets would reemerge with its sun. I would coin that event as a "Solar Collapse".

The problem for science today is that it is missing evidence / data of our own planet. We, as a race, species, believe we know enough to create theories and formulate Physics laws to explain the universe we see. But for some reason we fail to accept our own ignorance of our own planet. We know very little of our ocean beds, and absolutely nothing about the absolute center of our planet. Well, it would seem to me that if we can not see the point that actually rides along that "Race Track Ring", there is very little we could apply in the way of theory to explain the forces that propel us along that line. And the "Theories" that try to answer the question as to what is at the center of the planet, are exactly that, theories, unsubstantiated theories.

I would have to agree with you in that the force responsible for the movements of the planets are EM in nature, similar to the way electrons, neutrons, and protons rotate around a atomic nucleus.



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
originally posted by: [post=18137778]wildespace[/post
originally posted by: veteranhumanbeing

[I]Veteranhumanbeing[/I]You have an electron and a proton; then you have the neutron (or the neutralizer of both). Apply this to "your reason for being" and you will gain/grok all answers.



[I]wildespace[/I] What's this even supposed to mean? What reason for being?

Neutrons don't neutralise electrons or protons. They serve to bind the protons in the nucleus via the nuclear force, preventing the positively charged protons from repelling each other away. By the way, neutrons themselves consist of positively and negatively charged quarks, but their total charge in a neutron is zero.

That's what I said and Wikipedia agrees as well.


[I]wildespace[/I] Perhaps, before people get their own ideas about the physics and the way the universe works, they should familiarise themselves with the decades' worth of research and experimentation that had already been performed and forms the standard model. If someone thinks standard model is wrong, let's see their maths, experiments, peer-reviewed scientific papers.
By the way, I've noticed a peculiar irony: this thread started with a suggestion that the celestial motion is due to electromagnetism rather than gravity, but now the motion and positions of electrons is apparently due to gravity and not electromagnetism.

Maybe they should familiarize themselves with the Universe actually being one of binary information that collects and reinterprets itself to know ITSELF better (self defining, plastic and forever in a process growth formation).



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13
How does one balance the differing gravities against a common centrifugal force? You cant, as all planets do not have the same gravitational pull, or mass weight. Then what ever force is used to "Hold" each planet in its place, must be unique to the planetary body. It can be nothing else. So no to Q1

The Sun's gravity dominates the Solar System almost totally. Planets' own masses and gravities don't matter here; their orbital speed depends solely on their distance from the Sun - the further away, the slower they move. Yes, the combination of the pull from the Sun and their own lateral motion, is what keeps them in their orbits. You rejected this notion because you can't understand it, that much is clear from your post.

Earth's ocean beds and its core have nothing to do with celestial mechanics.

Keplerian laws of celestial motion have been known and tested for centuries, and allow us to accurately predict where the Solar System bodies will be in the future, and send robotic spacecraft to them. So scientists must have gotten _something_ right, right?



posted on Jul, 12 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
originally posted by: wildespace
That's what I said and Wikipedia agrees as well.

No, that's not what you said. You said that the neutron is the neutraliser of both [of an electron and a proton]. The neutron doesn't neutralise them; in an atom, the electron and the proton keep their respective charges (and this is what keeps the electrons bound to the nucleus through electrostatic force).

The only time electrons and protons neutralise is when a star collapses under its own gravity to form a neutron star, which pushed electrons into protons, turning them into neutrons.


Maybe they should familiarize themselves with the Universe actually being one of binary information that collects and reinterprets itself to know ITSELF better (self defining, plastic and forever in a process growth formation).

Again, what? and what does that have to do with celestial motion, or subatomic physics?
edit on 12-7-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

So scientists must have gotten _something_ right, right?
Certainly so!
But just because a heavenly body can be accurately predicted in its location, does not mean it is known how the planets are actually propelled around their orbits.


Earth's ocean beds and its core have nothing to do with celestial mechanics.
Debatable.

The very simple fact that oceans and the planetary cores are parts of our solar system, means, they must play some role in the bigger picture, and if one wants to see the bigger picture, one must consider all the little pictures that make up the bigger picture.

The earths outer surface is covered by 70% give or take, water. And that water is primarily on one side of the planet "Pacific Ocean". Water and rock have differing weights. Does our planet wobble around its solar race track, or does the planet rotate without effect, and is this expected wobble canceled out, by the moon?
And, does the celestial body "Ceres" have any such wobble? Ceres has no oceans, no moons.
en.wikipedia.org...


Why would two dissimilar sizes and consistency's follow their orbits uniformly? Why would a dwarf planet be any different that a full size planet? Or maybe that dwarf planet is something else, like the "Core" of a failed planet that used to be in the asteroid belt... So, if true, the core of any planet plays a extremely important role in "celestial mechanics"



posted on Jul, 14 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: wildespace

So scientists must have gotten _something_ right, right?
Certainly so!
But just because a heavenly body can be accurately predicted in its location, does not mean it is known how the planets are actually propelled around their orbits.

Propelled? What a stange word to use for bodies moving through the vacuum of space under their own inertia. Newton's First Law of Motion: "an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." Planets need no propulsion or propelling. The only force acting on them (if we ignore any possible interaction between themselves) is the Sun's gravity, which turns an otherwise straight path into path enclosed around the Sun (i.e. an orbit). And Kepler has pinned down _exactly_ how the planets are moving in their orbits. His centuries' old equations stand true to this day and are used by modern astronomers and rocket scientists.



Earth's ocean beds and its core have nothing to do with celestial mechanics.
Debatable.

The very simple fact that oceans and the planetary cores are parts of our solar system, means, they must play some role in the bigger picture, and if one wants to see the bigger picture, one must consider all the little pictures that make up the bigger picture.

The earths outer surface is covered by 70% give or take, water. And that water is primarily on one side of the planet "Pacific Ocean". Water and rock have differing weights. Does our planet wobble around its solar race track, or does the planet rotate without effect, and is this expected wobble canceled out, by the moon?

I'm not aware of any articles or papers showing how the Earth's oceans or mountains affect its rotation or orbit around the Sun. If there are any, I'd like to see them. As far as I'm aware, Earth is considered a single unit when orbiting the Sun, and (as I have mentioned in the previous post), this orbit is determined solely by the Sun's gravity, due to it being immensly more massive than the Earth.


Why would two dissimilar sizes and consistency's follow their orbits uniformly? Why would a dwarf planet be any different that a full size planet?

Firstly, size and consistency have no role here; only the mass matters. The mass of an orbiting body plays no effective role when the mass of the primary body (i.e. the Sun) is many orders more massive. Take a look at Newton's law of universal gravitation: F = Gm1m2/r2
When one of the masses (for example m1) is on many orders of the magnitude larger than the other mass (m2), the gravitational force F between those to masses is effectively determined by m1 and the distance (r) of m2 to it.

It's the same reason the ISS and a spacewalking astronaut can orbit the Earth at the same speed, despite being very different in mass, size, or composition. They are moving at the same speed because the mass of Earth is immensely greater than the mass of either the ISS or the astronaut, so it's only their altitude above earth that matters. Interestinly, it's also why geostationary satellites can exist: they are positioned sufficiently high above the Earth that their orbital period equals the rotation period of Earth.

It is indeed a puzzling notion that if you replaced a planet with a boulder (or even a pebble), it would continue on the same trajectory. The key to this is that the Sun is incrediby massive and dominates the orbits of anything in the Solar System (with the notable exception of Jupiter, which is massive enough to have its and the Sun's common centre of mass lying outside the Sun's surface).

~~~

I feel I must correct my earlier statement that the Earth's oceans play no role in the celestial motions. As it happens, the tides caused by the Moon are carried away from the point on Earth directly below the Moon due to the fact that Earth rotates a lot faster than the Moon goes around it. This creates a torque force, which slows the Earth's rotation, and at the same time boosts the Moon into a higher orbit. You may have heard that the Moon is slowly receding from Earth - this is the reason.

But I'm not aware of any effect of the Earth's oceans or rocks on its rotation or orbit around the Sun.
edit on 14-7-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Neither. Plasma effect control gravity and em it's not yet studied so we are still in the dark scientificly



posted on Jul, 30 2014 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Just saw this video in my Youtube sunbscriptions feed, and thought I'd share it here.

European Space Agency explains orbits and motion of bodies in space: www.youtube.com...




This video is part of a series of educational videos that ESA is releasing based on the five visionaries that lent their name to Europe’s space freighters.

Jules Verne, Johannes Kepler, Edoardo Amaldi, Albert Einstein and Georges Lemaître form the inspiration to explain the principles of physics to young and older audiences.

Presented by Anu Ojha, this video offers a good basis to introduce schoolchildren and the general public to concepts of orbital mechanics.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Planets don't Have em Fields.



posted on Aug, 3 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: FosterIgnorance
a reply to: Ophiuchus 13

Planets don't Have em Fields.

Some of them do, actually, due to the spinning core. Earth has an EM field, so do Saturn and Jupiter. The magnetosphere of Jupiter is the largest planetary magnetosphere in the Solar System, extending up to 7,000,000 kilometers (4,300,000 mi) on the dayside and almost to the orbit of Saturn on the nightside. Jupiter's magnetosphere is stronger than Earth's by an order of magnitude, and its magnetic moment is approximately 18,000 times larger. en.wikipedia.org...






top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join