From: csfed@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Frank Doss)
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:25:04 GMT

In article <62@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <Bvp9tI.Myy@encore.com>, bseymour@encore.com (Burch Seymour) writes:
>*news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>
>*I believe you always point to Jupiter (or is it Saturn) as being this star
>*during the antedeluivian times. What caused that star to stop burning?
>*How do electro-magnetic effects attenuate gravity on essentailly 
>*non-magnetic things, like animals? 
>
>The sun is both an electromag phenomenon and a thermonuclear one.  You learn
>in school that the sun is a thermonuclear engine as if the electromag part
>was of little consequence.  Were that so, then from the center of the sun 

The thermo-nuke reactions cause electro-magnetic fluxes.  If not for the
nukes and radiation, I doubt there would be any serious electro-mag
output of our little star.  Besides, it's the light of the sun that
catches our eyes, not the EMF.  Your theory states that the sun is now
what is visually dominant in our skies.

>But, for the non rocket scientists out there, which surely includes the entire
>t.o regular crew, the following Holden version of a WAG/conjecture might be
>more meaningful.
>
>Juergens saw stars as focal points of galactic electrical discharges, charged
>particals constantly arriving at them at relativistic speeds.  This would
>or might allow something like Jupiter or Saturn or something a big larger
>of which Jupiter and/or Saturn might be the remains to exist as a low energy
>star, if not a thermonuclear star such as our present, larger sun.

How did these "stars" generate energy?  I gather from the next paragraph
that you are saying that they were "lightning rods" of sorts.

>Now, picture a 200' lightning rod glowing in an electrical storm.  Then picture
>the Ace Lightning Rod company's truck driving up in the middle of the storm,
>and them erecting a pre-fabbed 1000' lightning rod only 100' away from the 
>smaller one.  The smaller lightning rod would die out;  it would no longer
>be the focal point of any discharge or the path of least resistence to
>anything.

Have you ever stood under a tree during an electrical storm?  I know
some people who have.  They barely survived the hit.

But since we know that our sun is an electrical SOURCE, not a focusing
point (such as you have illustrated the Saturn/Jupiter sun(s) to have
been), I would think that the introduction of a new electrical power
supply would have enhanced the focusing stars, not diminish.

In your analogy, the introduction of the sun to your old-time solar
system would be more like bringing in another thunder-cloud, about 500'
off the ground, heavily discharging into the tower.  The tower would be
aglow until finally being burnt to a crisp.

If Saturn and Jupiter were energy sources in their own rights, this
would be like saying that when I drive my car by a power plant, my
alternator no longer has influence over my car's electrical systems.
The CIPS plant would dominate my car's hood.

One point unrelated to this issue...

The moon causes our oceanic tides, right?  The tidal bulge follows the
moon.

If we had a gravitational source much greater than the moon, in close
proximity, would it not cause the tidal bulge to be bigger?  If one side
of the planet always faced that source, would not the tidal bulge be
fixed on the side of the planet with the gravitational source?

I know many others have posed this question before, but I have yet to
see an answer.  Mention I have not mentioned sauropods.  The question
did not refer to incidental passengers.  The answer should do the same.

>Ted Holden
>HTE


-- 

Frank Doss 
The above stated words are my opinions and do not reflect the opinions,
attitudes, or policies of my employer or any affilliated organizations.
Newsgroups: talk.origins