From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Subject: Re: Uneven felt gravity
Organization: NRAO
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 06:18:53 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:
>
>*What, precisely, is an "electromag star". Is our Sun one of these? Can you
>*give an example of one? 
>
>*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 
>outwards, it should just get cooler.  That isn't the case;  the sun gets cooler
>from the center out to the surface, and then a great deal hotter (this is my
>understanding) out to the photosphere.  In other words, the sun behaves like
>an electrical phenomenon rather than a thermonuclear one in major ways.

So in what major ways does it?  By the way your understanding is wrong.
The temperature of the photosphere is about 5700 K.  The temperature at
the core is much hoter.  So is the temperature in the corona. However
if one does photography, temperatures for natural lighting is around
5500 to 6000.  Does that tell you something?

Have you ever bothered to try and learn the difference between temperature
and heat?  Now that is a silly question!!!!

Would you consider watching "The Mechanical Universe" which is currently
running on the Mind Extentsion University cable channel.  It only requires
high school algebra and a little calculus to follow it.  It is a little
boring though.  They insist on deriving and solving the equation
F = ma      week after week.  But that might do you some good.

>
>I would recommend you find a copy of "Velikovsky Reconsidered", Warner, 1973
>I believe and check out the article by Ralph Juergens.  The group of scholars
>who gravitated around Velikovsky regarded Juergens as one of the two or
>three geniuses amongst themselves, and he had more to say about the electrical
>nature of galactic space, the interstellar plasma, and of stars, than
>anybody I am aware of.
>
So who are these scholars?  So who are these other two or three geniuses?
Don't tell me that one of these is Robert Bass. 

>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.

So what is so special about a rocket scientist.  That is just someone
who does have some aquaintence with the equation  F = ma.
Something which you have not demonstrated about yourself.

>
>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.
>
Is there a sentence or even a coherent thought in the above?

>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 taken an E&M course?  What would be the potential energy
between the two rods in your senario?  Something on the order of volts
per meter would do.
>
>Thus it might also be were a large star such as our sun to capture one or
         ^^^^^^^^^^
>two smaller stars such as Jupiter or Saturn, or something somewhat larger
>as I have mentioned, Jupiter and Saturn being the remains.

You haven't yet demonstrated that it would be for anything!

>
>The smaller star would go out, but the people who witnessed such an event
>would not have known much of electrical theory or the nature of stars;
>they would have written that the old god had grown old, and feeble.
>
>Such is indeed the language you will find in Dr. E.A. Wallace Budge's
>Gods of the Egyptians, Dover version commonly available, in the story of the
>destruction of mankind.

I know you don't like astronomers except for Robert Bass.  But you should
try tolearn some physics.  Astronomy is nothing by applied physics.
>
>
>*
>*Several people have shown that for the tidal effects of orbiting near
>*a star to reduce the "felt effect" to your requirements would:
>*
>*   A) Heat the Earth to unsurvivable temperatures
>*   B) Tear the planet apart
>*
>*and that the subsequent journey to our current orbit would:
>*
>*   A) Cool the Earth to unsurvivable temperatures
>*   B) Rip away our atmosphere
>*
>*Of course this is based on physics. 
>
>Only on their less than perfect understanding of physics.  Nothing in
>their version of physics gives a clue as to how a 200,000 sauropod 
       [..... garbage deleted  ....]
SO WHAT IS YOUR VERSION OF PHYSICS?  YOU HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED ANYTHING
YET!  That was not the question you were being asked!  Don't change
the subject like a slimy politician.
-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@something.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)