Theredbarron

Why is everyone stuck on gravity? I'm talking about static electricity. I get that it looks as though a vacuum is suction and that pressure is actually pushing on it. Wouldn't that intensify the effects of the static electricity attraction or make it stronger in a direction as to appear to suck it up? Isn't static electricity the balancing of electrical properties as material moves near or while in contact with other matter of different properties? Since gravity is constant all around the surface and the surface is contacting itself all around the planet or moon and the matter in the core is moving past and rubbing against under the surface could it then generate static electricity? Not only does the core already have magnetic properties couldn't it amplify the static electrical difference that are being created all around it? This is saying that the crust itself has magnetic properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field_of_the_Moon The static electricity of the Moon. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2007/04/static-electricity-could-short-circuit-moon-missions Earth creates Lightning With its size of magnetic field correct?

this part and I didn't say it is gravity on this thread did I. I have been clearly talking about static electricity and you are just reverting back to the other thread. Just telling me how things work doesn't help me understand. I ask for references or I will be here all day waiting and asking and I dont like sitting here that much. Im pretty sure you dont like it either or you would just simply have a conversation about the topic and not what you are connecting things to or think I'm connecting things to. That would be called assumption. Cant you just answer the questions? Thank you. I know but I cant find anything in direct reference to the moons poles and weight and density of the matter that surrounds it.

No I mean so that I dont have to have you answer all my questions as to be annoying. If what read doesn't make sense I will ask questions definitely. Are you saying that it wont do the same with a metal tube?

Is there as site that I can go to read about this specifically related to the moon? I figured this is where the separation is then this is where I will find some answers.

So if its not holding it in place then why when the wind blows the pressure is increased on one side then the object moves not to say that gravity isn't holding it just It appears this way? If gravity is whats holding it then why does it move at all from the start? Its While its moving that I'm interested in. While its moving its generating the static electricity. How much would someone weight on the poles of the moon?

I am not discussing that. I'm simply trying to answer some of my own questions. I was asked questions earlier about it so I answered but other then that.

Are you reading at all? Doesn't gravity answer those questions? I thought I was talking about static electricity and the moons atmosphere or lack there of. You must be thinking about the part were all matter is susceptible to static electricity and there fore has magnetic properties and could possibly be attracted using the opposite force which would be a space without any electrical properties. It does sound like pressure balancing. Can you tell me how much you weigh on the moon at the poles? Its there any of the gases that are on the moon up there either? Is it not true that all matter is susceptible to static electricity?

This was the other thread right? And yes I think that if I pushed on something with 14.7 psi all the time from all around it might stay put if there is nothing else to move it. Yes. This is why the moon is interesting. It doesn't have a magnetic field like earth which would lead me to believe that the core is either not moving fast enough to generate it or it doesn't have enough of the right materials either in the core or the crust to generate a notable magnetic field. What I read is that it has some of the right materials but is it spinning fast enough to generate a magnetic field big enough to effect the surface? Another thought is that as matter rubs up against each other an seperates it creates static electricity correct? Some matter more then others as they separate. What happens when this matter moves a lot faster then a balloon rubbing on carpet? Isn't static electricity an attraction between materials electrical properties that includes insulators? The more up on the table of elements the more actual electrons an protons are available to be attracted. This is what makes me think is why bigger or more dense attracts more. What would something weigh on the poles of the moon?

Correct I wanted to see if I can figure out a way to make it useful in low atmospheric conditions.

I made this wheel that I'm trying to test and figure out what I can do with it. It draws air and light weight stuff like paper to it when its out in the open with a tube to direct its effects. I had made the comparison to gravity earlier on another topic so I'm trying to avoid that part.

mine is rotating fast but the surface speed is barely 1mph. Another question I have is if solar winds are apart of the suns atmosphere and its contacting us even at a minimal degree is the moon collecting part of this atmosphere?

That would be called gravity Nat a container

This is exactly what I'm Thinking. The vacuum of space is not inside a container either.

Are you saying that if you stood next to a giant vacuum that it wouldn't attract you?

No. It starts with very fast rotating mass that's inside the planet that creates this void that I'm going after. Weather or not its the start of gravity is up in the air to me right now. It cant just enter the empty space is the idea. Its just attracted to it and if its going fast enough it may stick like in an orbit around it is what I picture or the correct trajectory like our atmosphere.

This is very possible yes Yes is it initially static possibly or is it simple the motion as to how it collects its atmosphere?

What I'm referring to is the opposite of positive and negative at the same time which would be the no protons or electrons. Matter itself has positive and negative charges at the same time. How would someone move something that is charged with both to include air and all thing on the table of elements? You would have to create a space without any of these properties to attract both the protons and electrons In matter. Much like vacuum would pull in matter is has a lower total charge due to the less total mass that is inside which would attract matter if its a great enough differential or strength is what I'm purposing.

the opposite of magnetism is no magnetism which means not protons or electrons which have magnetic properties and exists in all matter. that would be facts

Really Are you just going to contradict everything just because? This is speculations and I'm speculating.

Sorry that wasn't supposed to be for here. Ok so what I was thinking is that in order to attract matter, like a magnet, which has both protons and electrons you would have to have the opposite. which would be no proton or electrons. So in order to do that it would have to be a vacuum correct? we cant make that kind of vacuum with what we have really but if you stood next to a space with less matter in it then its more of an opposite charge of magnetism so it would attract matter. So I made this wheel to use centrifugal force to push out all the matter and make an area with out electrons and proton's as to attract matter with them. Does that make any sense? So I was trying to understand vacuum a little better and how planets collect is own gasses based upon the surface speed and the diameter of the planet.

So what if I told you that I made that wheel to use centrifugal force to push all the matter out and not let any back in as to make a zone of no electrons or a open space a like a vacuum which then would attract matter with electrons, would that make better sense?

Thank you good sir. Other sites are saying that the planets are orbiting in the same direction as the suns rotation and around the area of the suns equator some higher some lower then others. Is this also true?

Is this information correct? anybody https://www.windows2universe.org/spaceweather/sun_earth6.html

Did I state that wrong? Is 30 in hg different from what I read on a vacuum gauge? Found it So couldn't you put a chamber inside a chamber and drop the vacuum lower in the inner chamber? So I'm still interested in playing with this concept. Maybe I can find a use but I would like to get it in a chamber with 30in pumped down. What should I use to measure what its doing? Or what would be a good idea to put inside that I can get an accurate measurement or weight of? I've got a pretty good idea of what it can do but I would like to test it out and see what else it can do.

Ok so what would 30 in hg be in comparison to?