Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: JUST SIX NUMBERS

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    170

    JUST SIX NUMBERS

    Posted: 25 Oct 2003 23:21 Post subject:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dear posters,

    I wonder, could anyone post more information on the following subject.

    I wrote the following, albeit some while ago and from a quote:

    "However, conversely, in the book 'Just Six Numbers', by Martin Rees, he writes (pp 29):

    "Gravity starts off on the atomic scale, with a handycap of thirty-six powers of ten; but it gains two powers of ten (in other words 100) for every three powers (factors of 1,000) on mass. So gravity will have caught up for the fifty-fourth object (54 = 36 x 3/2), which has about Jupiter's mass. In any still heavier lump more massive than Jupiter, gravity is so strong that it overwhelms the forces that hold solids together."

    Judging by this theory, anything beyond the size or mass of Jupiter, at least theory-wise, it seems gravity without a doubt, is the dominant force, which would seriously disprove any idea of there being an electrically dominated universe.

    Comments please!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    2,689

    Re: JUST SIX NUMBERS

    Quote Originally Posted by John T
    Judging by this theory, anything beyond the size or mass of Jupiter, at least theory-wise, it seems gravity without a doubt, is the dominant force, which would seriously disprove any idea of there being an electrically dominated universe.
    Disprove? That's not new information, it's been around longer than a hundred years.

    What do you (you) mean by "electrically dominated universe".

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,253

    Re: JUST SIX NUMBERS

    Quote Originally Posted by kilopi
    What do you (you) mean by "electrically dominated universe".
    I think this thread may help.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    922

    Re: JUST SIX NUMBERS

    Quote Originally Posted by John T
    Posted: 25 Oct 2003 23:21 Post subject:



    "Gravity ..... it gains two powers of ten (in other words 100) for every three powers (factors of 1,000) on mass....!
    Duh, would someone please tell me what this means or is suppose to mean? :-k
    G^2

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    2,689

    Re: JUST SIX NUMBERS

    Quote Originally Posted by dgruss23
    Quote Originally Posted by kilopi
    What do you (you) mean by "electrically dominated universe".
    I think this thread may help.
    Sorta. There still doesn't seem to be much of a connection between it and the claim in the OP.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    170
    kilopi wrote:

    What do you (you) mean by "electrically dominated universe".
    Within that brief statement, I am referring to the hypothesis that claims that the properties of the electrical force in the universe, operating within plasma, by far outweighs the force of gravity.

    For just one instance, it is claimed within the electric universe hypothesis, that the sun and indeed all stars, are essentially "anodes" located at the centers of "cathodeless" discharges.

    Further, on a much lesser scale, but still within the same hypothesis, many of the apparent "geological" features observed on the "rocky" planets, including many satellites, asteroids, the behaviour of comets etc., were apparently caused by the interplay of huge electrical forces.

    It was primarily this aspect, ie purported electrical cratering etc, that initially interested me mostly during my earlier days of gaining some knowledge of the subject.

    Also, there are numerous myths and legends etc around the world that appear to be similarly describing actual celestial events, that were apparently observed and witnessed by the ancient peoples of those times.

    In this area of mythology (which I understand is not representative of physical "science"), it would appear that many of these myths etc were not just mere products of idle ramblings, superstitious imaginations gone wild etc., variously claimed as "fairy tails" these days, but were actual celestial events, described in a manner or "sense", as being the "science" of yesteryear.

    The electric universe hypothesis, utilizing the "dominant electric force" explains many of these myths and legends as possible occurrences.
    In a gravity dominated universe, such myths (at least to my mind) are mostly unexplainable.

    Prof. Martin Rees describes in his book 'Just Six Numbers' (no doubt written for the lay-person), that the electrical force and the gravitational force "equalize out" at about the size and mass of Jupiter and that thereafter, with ever increasing size and mass, the force of gravity becomes evermore dominant over the electrical force.

    This statement suggests to me, that up to the size and mass of stars such as the sun and much greater, even to galaxies etc., the gravitational force is so much more powerful and dominant, that the electric force is relegated to a level of relative insignificance.

    If this is really the case, then in support of mainstream astronomy/cosmology, the electric universe hypothesis, as being just an hypothesis, is "disproven" (to my mind), at least amongst objects beyond the size and mass of Jupiter.

    You see, in the electric universe hypothesis, at least as I see it (and I may be wrong), the electric force is regarded as always being 10^36 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, from the atomic level upwards.

    My initial query was for seeking an explanation as to why both these forces apparently do equalize out at the size and mass of Jupiter, as written by Martin Rees.

    I admit that there is currently very little math that describes the "scalability" of the electric universe hypothesis, but such math etc is no doubt being worked upon and may be revealed in the near future.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    2,689
    What Rees is talking about is the difference between solids and non-solids, so I'm not sure it has much to do with whether the electric universe hypothesis is valid or not. How does it disprove it?

  8. #8
    Guest

    monday MORning?

    cyan 11/3 blue? skys .. i mean more cyan at 7

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    170
    kilopi,

    You are absolutely correct, Rees is indeed talking about the differences between solids and non-solids, so it appears that my initial assumption as to this explanation being a "disproof" of the electric universe hypothesis, is wrong.

    No matter, I shall just have to revise exactly what it is that the electric universe fraternity have to say about "gravity".

    Unfortunately, as I have mentioned before, there is very little material around that actually defines "gravity" in terms of an electric universe, excepting to say that I have read somewhere that gravity might actually be an electrical effect, albeit operating within plasma and that electrons themselves are sub-divisible into dipolar structures (Ralph Sansbury?).

    It is further hypothesized that all the planets immersed within this plasma, contain by various degrees a net negative charge, which is both electrically and magnetically shielded by the plasma.

    This "shielding" (to my thinking), gives rise to the magnetosphere, or perhaps more accurately, the "plasma sheath", which could offer a possible explanation for the numerous myths etc that describe close encounters of certain erratically moving planets during ancient times, that were apparently throwing huge thunderbolts around at each other.

    In this context, I believe the electrical exchanges were determined by the various "degrees of negativity" between the encountering magnetosphere's (plasma sheaths), which effectively caused one body to take on the role of the cathode and the other body, the anode.
    When these plasma sheath's came into contact with each other, huge interplanetary lightning bolts ensued between both bodies.

    Following such electrical interactions and exchanges, which no doubt would cause much devastation, the resultant rapidly organized orbital spacings that we view today, might be due to the maximum repulsion effect of these negatively charged planets/plasma sheath's, so that their electrical interactions are minimized.
    Perhaps this might also explain the many "resonances" that still exist between certain planets, as a sort of "record" of their previous encounters.

    Mythology does seem to suggest that there were errant planets in ancient times and if this is true, the electric universe concept is just an attempt to explain them.

    Thanks for your input

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    170
    I would just like to say, that maybe on this particular thread (which I started), ie 'JUST SIX NUMBERS', I have perhaps misinterpreted what Prof. Martin Rees was actually attempting to say in his book, with regard to "gravity" verses the "electric force".

    Fair enough.

    However, part of the reason for this apparent "confusion" (indeed on my part), is because quite frankly (in my view), most of what Rees has said in the book is rather "peculiar"... to say the least!

    To my mind, the question must be asked;

    How does Martin Rees (and indeed most of the numerous agreeable and "fully-trained" cosmological "followers" etc), actually "know" themselves what it is they are talking about?

    Where is the "evidence" for these most unusual and quite frankly...absurd and unrealistic claims?

    Come-on now, let us think!

    Conjectured "Parallel and Multiple Universes" etc?

    To my mind, all that Rees has said in the book 'Just Six Numbers', is pure hypothesizing...indeed fictional and no doubt worthy of future 'Star trek' movies etc.

    The notion and the "message", contained within the book 'JUST SIX NUMBERS' (which I think is absolute and complete "dribble"), is apparently conveniently notched-in for what it is that we are supposed to accept and indeed "believe" in the world of Astronomy/Cosmology etc.

    I for one do not "buy" such nonsense.

    Surely, let the so-called and apparently undisputed principals of "mathematics" fit what it is we actually observe

    Please, not the other way around.

Similar Threads

  1. Favourite 10 Numbers Under 100
    By jkmccrann in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-06, 04:01 AM
  2. Numbers
    By rahuldandekar in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2004-Dec-09, 10:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •