asteroids and comets comet 67p Earth Electric Universe evidence? Electric Universe theory electromagnetic gravity electromagnetic matter electromagnetic orbit EU theory Space
Electric Matter: Mass, Weight and Density
October 13, 2015 October 27, 2015 electrobleme
Are mass and weight electric in nature? Is gravity an electromagnetic force?
If these things are electrical in nature or influenced by an Electric Universe then are planets and space bodies orbits also an electromagnetic phenomenon?
And then the calculated density of objects could also be wrong?
Below are quotes from Electric Universe theory (EU theory) sites about electric matter, electric mass, electric weight and electric density.
Electric Matter
The lesson to be learned is the real meaning of E=mc^2: MASS and ENERGY are PROPERTIES of MATTER.
Mass is an energetic variable dependent on the presence of other matter and the electrical stress in the environment. Mass is not equivalent to the amount of matter. Just because both words begin with 'm' does not mean they can be substituted in the mass-energy equation.
The calculated density of comet 67 P cannot tell us what the comet is made from. If it looks like rock, it's safest to assume it is rock! It is not necessary for the low density to be due solely to high porosity of the interior of the comet. The electrical model even suggests hollowness as a possibility.
Congratulations Rosetta, Shame About The Science ... | holoscience
Gravity acts in proportion to the mass of an object. What do we mean when we refer to the 'mass' of an object? "One of the most astonishing features of the history of physics is the confusion which surrounds the definition of the key term in dynamics, mass." [13] Early in the 20th century numerous textbooks equated the mass of an object to its weight. That equation led to confusion because it doesn't explain why the mass of an object we measure on a weighing machine (gravitational mass) is identical to the mass of that object when we push it (inertial mass).
When it was found that atoms are composed of charged particles, there were attempts to explain mass in terms of electromagnetism. Henri Poincaré wrote in 1914, "What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." It makes good sense that the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass should be explained by the electrical structure of matter. However, it is not the philosophical concept of mass but its mathematical treatment that occupies physicists. Einstein's famous equation, E = mc2, demonstrated that mass and electromagnetic energy are directly related. But mystification resulted when the earlier concept that related mass to 'quantity of matter' was unconsciously substituted. Textbooks and encyclopaedias today slip unnoticeably into the error of using the words 'mass' and 'matter' interchangeably. A NASA educational website tells us that "mass is a measure of how much matter a planet is made of." It shows that the confusion of mass with quantity of matter infects astrophysics.
The consequences are profound for cosmology. The mass of a celestial body cannot tell us about its composition. We cannot say what the Sun is made from! Another example is comet nuclei, which are electrically charged bodies. They register masses that should have them constructed like an empty sponge yet they look like solid rock. It is their appearance, together with the recently recovered high-temperature minerals (rock particles) from a comet, that give the accurate picture. Comets and asteroids are fragments of planets. They are not primordial—quite the reverse, in fact.
This inexcusable philosophical muddle over matter and mass has given rise to violation of the fundamental physics principle of no creation or annihilation of matter. It has allowed a miraculous cosmological creation story to gain currency, known as the 'big bang.' [14] Notions of 'vacuum energy' and of particles 'winking in and out of existence' in the vacuum of space are similarly miraculous. The simple fact is that we have no concept of why matter manifests with mass.
But when we apply force to a body, how is that force transferred to overcome inertia? The answer is 'electrically' by the repulsion between the outer electrons in the atoms closest to the points of contact. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass strongly suggests that the force of gravity is a manifestation of the electric force.
Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe | holoscience
Einstein's famous mathematical expression E=mc2, equating energy and mass is known by almost everyone. However, most textbooks go on to use the word "matter" in place of "mass." But nowhere has it been shown that mass and matter are interchangeable. In fact, we are entirely ignorant of what constitutes the mass of an object. So it is inadmissible to imply that energy and matter are interchangeable. The ultimate expression of this idea led to the nonsense of the big bang. It seems simpler and more sensible to suggest that both nuclear and chemical energy is released or absorbed by the rearrangement of the resonant orbits of charged particles. It is then common sense to suggest that mass is the measured response of a system of charged particles to an external electrostatic force. The more massive an object, the more the electrostatic force contributes to the elastic deformation of its protons, neutrons and electrons, rather than their acceleration. This is the phenomenon seen in particle accelerators and conventionally attributed to relativistic effects. But relativity reduces to classical physics in a universe where the electrostatic force has near-infinite speed. The first question to be asked is – if it is that simple, why hasn't it been thought of long ago? The answer seems to lie in the propensity for mathematical theory to supersede common sense and observation. There is also a problem of language when mathematicians attempt to provide real meaning for their symbols.
Electric Universe theory - Some Basics | holoscience
Electric Density
Is the calculated density of space bodies wrong?
If gravity is an electromagnetic force then does its weight not have any relationship to its orbit or effect on its calculated density?
Does the supposed and amazingly super low density of comets and some other planets moons - when they look very solidly made of supposed ice or actual rock - show evidence that calculating mass/weight/density using a gravity universe could be wrong?
Astronomers have calculated the mass and density of comet nuclei from their presumed gravitational effects on the trajectories of nearby spacecraft. By this reasoning, comet Halley had a density of only one tenth to one quarter that of water. But seen in close-up, all comet nuclei look like solid rock. What is going on?
Science surprisingly takes no account of the electrical nature of matter when it comes to the related phenomena of inertial mass and gravity. It is a crucial factor here. Though we intend to take up the issue of the 'gravitational constant' in a forthcoming monograph, it is proposed that, if gravity is due to an extremely weak electric polarization of subatomic particles within charged bodies, gravitational [p97] determination of the masses and densities of celestial bodies are immediately suspect.
Comets, Electricity and Gravity | thunderbolts
Other limiting beliefs concern gravity and the electrical neutrality of celestial objects. Either one is sufficient to cause misleading or wrong deductions about Saturn and Titan,— the two major targets of the Cassini mission. Newton's famous law of gravitation relates the force between two bodies to the product of their masses and the square of the distance between their centers. But 'mass' and its relation to matter remains a metaphysical concept. However, we know from particle accelerator experiments that the mass of a particle of matter increases when subjected to acceleration in an electromagnetic field. So the internal electromagnetic state of a planet or a star may alter its apparent mass. Yet scientists calculate the mass of Saturn or its moon, Phoebe, by measuring the gravitational force and assuming a universal constant of gravitation, written 'G.' In an electric universe 'G' is neither universal nor constant. We cannot simply calculate the density of celestial bodies by estimating mass using Newton's law of gravity.
In Saturn's case, using Newton's law, it is calculated that it is 95 times more massive than the Earth, which gives it a mean density only 0.7 that of water. Given a big enough bath, Saturn would float! The electric universe model suggests that Newton's law will not give a true picture of the planet's density and therefore of its composition. Saturn may have considerably more heavy elements than its gravity would suggest. Low gravity suggests low internal electric stress. And that may tell us something about Saturn's recent history.
Cassini's Homecoming | holoscience
Electric Matter links, articles and discussion
Are Mass and Weight actually the same thing? | thunderbolts forum
← Electric Gravity
Turning water into calcium not wine →
Large intraplate earthquakes
January 12, 2015 December 26, 2019 electrobleme 0
Dating techniques wrong: evidence?
March 30, 2015 November 20, 2016 electrobleme 1
Electromagnetic Galaxy and Universe
March 11, 2019 March 13, 2019 electrobleme 0