"luke" wrote in message
om...
"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...
----- Original Message -----
From: "luke"
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:11 AM
Subject: Solar Eruption and Electrostatic Gravity


"ralph sansbury" wrote in message
...
[snip]

I assume that the spinning and orbiting motion of
planets
and moons and suns is associated with charge polarization
in
their nuclei transverse to these motions and that the
attractions
in a radial direction account for the gravitational force
of these
objects.


Well then how do you account for the Cavendish experiment
results?

The horizontal projection or the radial force as
mentioned in
the part
you snipped
see also www.bestweb.net/~sansbury



Am I to understand that in your theory the cavendish force is
directly
proportional to the spin of the Earth? So a Cavendish
experiment
performed in an intertial frame would yield a null result?

The Cavendish experiment is performed in a coordinate
system
on the spinning orbiting-the-sun
and orbiting the solar system etc earth where the origin is
perhaps the fixed heavy lead sphere.
You might construct another coordinate system the same in
every respect spinning etc and moving at a slow constant velocity
relative to
the first and you would get the same result.


Sorry if I didn't read your material thoroughly but I imagine
you
would have interesting things to say about the mass and density
of
Mars as it has a much smaller rotation rate..

Think of the total angular momentum not just the rotation rate.
The force between Mars and
the Sun that is used to determine Mars' mass
is consistent with the mass associated with a
net dipole transverse to its orbital motion.
There is also a component of Mars' mass
which is a dipole transverse to its spin.


To be more general the currently formulated orbital mechanics
works
for a central force and is independent of angular momentum..
wouldn't
a theory such as yours destroy this symmetry and change the
orbit
equation? For example an elliptical orbit has more centrifugal
force
at perihelion, and so should have stronger dipole moments, and
more
gravity than 1/r^2..

Yes there might be a slight increase in the mass at perihelion
and decrease at aphelion but remember the dipole magnitude
is also influenced by the distance and is proportional to rv/c
and perhaps these effects cancel. It is also true that the
average
constant mass values based on the observed orbits makes
for an elliptical equation that fits the earth orbital path as
observed
So I dont see any necessary contradiction here.
It is interesting to think about possible effects if not on
how much something weighs since that is due to the dipoles
associated with rotation rate but on phenomena associated
with the earth sun interaction at these points, perhaps radio
communications, weather, volcanoes eathquakes etc and the
interaction with the moons orbit and this component dipole.
But again it is likely that the dipole being proportional both
to velocity and distance that the effects cancel and maintain
the symmetry that is assumed.

The proposed polarization of charge in atomic nuclei and
electrons and mesons etc overlaps the concept of spin.
And so perhaps also the attempted explanation of forces
as
being associated with and determined in some mystical way by
the
exchange of photons or short lived charged particles in CERN
'pictures'
of collisions of protons etc.
So the gravitational field may be due to radially oriented
electrostatic dipoles. This would explain the radial
attraction of objects toward the center of the earth and of
objects as in Cavendish's experiment. In the latter case the
horizontal force between the objects may be the projection of
the
radial force in the horizontal direction.
(see www.bestweb.net/~sansbury)