Strange

NOTE: Swansont and I both give different answers to the "what is the reaction to gravity" question. They are both correct in different contexts. In yet another context, it could be something else; for example, in the Millikan experiment, it is the electric field. By the way: the reason you don't sink through your chair, the reason it feels solid, is because of the electric charges of the electrons in its molecules pushing against the electrons in your molecules. So, in certain contexts, the force of gravity is countered by electric charge.

Of course. A laser is the obvious example.

The reaction to gravity is the chair pushing at your arse. Yes you do. For example: If this is not a guess, then please show in appropriate mathematical detail: 1. That the compression in your diagram will create a blue diagram 2. That Rayleigh [note spelling] scattering does not have enough energy to show blue. As you cannot do either of these things, this is what is technically known as a "guess". Yes, where I showed that if there was no net force, there would be no orbits. Yes, your model does not work. Which is why your model does not work.

No, you are guessing based on your misunderstandings of the basic bits and pieces of science that you think you understand. Which is proof that you do not understand it.

When I was young, it was even more complicated. There just seemed to be a random zoo of dozens (hundreds?) of different particles. Since then, the discovery of quarks has simplified things enormously introducing a systematic pattern to the fundamental particles. However, there are people investigating whether these are truly fundamental. There are many attempts to define all particles (including quarks, electrons and in some cases bosons) in terms of smaller particles. Currently, none of these models work or have supporting evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

The behaviour of plasma (a combination of electrons and ions) in the presence of a magnetic field is immensely complicated and I wouldn't want to guess at any answers related to it. (I recommend you avoid guessing about it as well.)

To be honest, that is because you have a very vague understanding of about 10% of what you are told. The rest just confuses you. You also ignore and misinterpret anything that contradicts your idea. But these are two weak to have any effect of the motion of the Earth. The magnetic fields are too weak to overcome gravity. Also, whether the magnetic fields attract or repel depends on their orientation - which is constantly changing. This is a crackpot pseudoscience website. (Unfortunately, you don't know enough basic science to tell.) Just no. The reason for the sky being blue is well understood and nothing to do with that. No. <sigh> There are both positive and negative charges. If you were to swap their signs, it would make no difference. Gravity does not have positive and negative components so there is nothing to swap.

There is a hypothesis that a minimum level of radiation is needed to stimulate repair mechanisms in cells. This wouldn't be too surprising a we have evolved with a certain background level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

That is irrelevant. That is about the magnetism of a single electron in an atom. It also emits positively charged ions. So there is no net charge. How can the core emit electrons? It is in the middle of the Earth. Where are they going to go. And no it doesn't anyway. Nope. the Earth is electrically neutral. No net charge. Nothing to do with energy. Charge is not energy. As you have been told repeatedly. I can't see how you get from electrons and ions (electrically charged atoms) to friction. You might as well say it sounds like nougat or reggae. What pressure?

No difference at all. It is just an accident of history that the electron is called negative.

The sun emits a mixture of particles. There is no net charge. You are just ignoring anything that contradicts your idea. Nope. 1. If you work out orbits based just on gravity you get the right answer. 2. If you work out the forces due to solar wind, magnet fields, whatever else, they are approximately zero.

When you can produce some evidence beyond "it looks like" ...

Gravity: [latex]\displaystyle f = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}[/latex] Coulomb: [latex]\displaystyle f = \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \frac{q_1 q_2}{r^2}[/latex] You want these two forces to be equal so: [latex]\displaystyle G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} = \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} \frac{q_1 q_2}{r^2}[/latex] The distance ® cancels: [latex]\displaystyle G m_1 m_2 = \frac{1}{4 \pi \epsilon_0} q_1 q_2[/latex] If we make the two charges equal and the two masses equal: [latex]\displaystyle G m^2 = \frac{q^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0}[/latex] From this we can work out the ratio of mass to charge for the forces to just cancel: [latex]\displaystyle \frac{m}{q} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon_0 G}}[/latex] If we make the charge equal to the electron we get: [latex]\displaystyle m = \frac{e}{\sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon_0 G}}[/latex] Which is about 2 micrograms http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=electron+charge+%2F+\sqrt%284+\pi+\epsilon0+G%29 So, if you take a grain of sand, split in two and put an electron on each half, there will be no net force between them. The trouble is if you were to add an extra force, as you want to do, then none of our maths would work for for calculating the orbits of planets, the paths of cricket balls, and getting rockets into orbit, etc. And if, as above, you match the gravitational force with a repulsive force, then there would be no orbits because there would be no net force.

In bubbles of air. Not like in that (fake) photo.

The tangent function. It goes to infinity at pi/2: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y%3Dtan%28x%29+for+x+0+to+pi%2F2 If it is infinite then it was (probably) always infinite. I don't suppose it cares. A finite universe is odd too: why that size? I would assume there is matter in all of space, even if the universe is finite. If there is empty space then that is part of the universe - how far does that empty space go on? And note that it us space that is expanding, not the matter in space. It is unknown. I'm sure some people prefer one over the other.

Then why do you think it makes sense to use them? You might as well write random Chinese characters and expect people to understand. So, you clearly want the Coulomb force, not Lorentz. (And it is much simpler) Form that you can work out what value of charge will balance a given mass. (I might do it later, if I have time).

I think you could still type G (gravitational constant) instead of g (acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface). The Lorentz force (note spelling) depends on velocity (including direction), charge, electric field (including direction) and magnetic field (including direction). You have not said what or where q, v, E or B are.

What is fn or fn0?

I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. You have, I assume, the gravitational force between the two masses (That should be G not g, and r2 not r2). The other equation is for the force of a charge moving in a magnetic field. There is all sorts of information missing: what is the source and orientation of the magnetic field, what is charged, what direction is the charge moving, etc. Also, the force in this case is at right angles to both the direction of movement and the magnetic field. I don't think you could contrive a case where it acts in the direction you have shown. Maybe you wanted to compare the force of gravity and the Coulomb force? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law Then you could balance the repulsive force of the charges and the attractive force of gravity. But note that it is impossible for this to be stable. The two objects will either fall towards each other under gravity or be repelled by the electric charges. However, a variation of this was used as the basis of the Millikan oil-drop experiment to measure electric charge.

An ion is just an atom with one or more electrons removed so it becomes positively charged. I don't think so. There are two pieces of foil which are connected to each other (where they hinge at the top). If you give the foild an electric charge (either positive or negative, then the two pieces of foil will repel each other. I don't know what this has to do with the Earth emitting electrons (even if it does). The electrons could come from anywjher, but they need to get on to the foil. E.g. from a balloon that has been rubbed on a jumper ... or whatever. It emits many particles including electrons and ions. This is the solar wind. Not that I am aware of. It depends how you define strong or weak. It is quite weak because electrons are tiny. But if you rub a balloon, you can stick it to the ceiling, so it is strong enough to hold the weight of a balloon. There are very complex interactions between the solar wind and the Earth's magnetic field. This probably removes some atoms from the Earth's atmosphere but it isn't something I know anything about.

Firstly, it can't possibly be smoke in water. It might be some other liquid in water or, more likely, a very clever piece of photoshop. Although you didn't (as usual) provide a source, it comes from here: http://missparisienne.deviantart.com/art/Smoke-under-water-349335450 This is an art website. Also, I doubt it would have any similarity to the thermodynamics of clouds in air: water is a liquid, it has a different density than air, it has a different specific heat, and so on. Smoke (or whatever it is) has nothing in common with clouds. You are, perhaps, being misled by a superficial visual similarity. How can smoke be denser than water. Smoke floats in the air. Water doesn't.

Yes. It doesn't have to be local. An infinite space can globally become less dense. Imagine a ruler which is infinitely long and marked in centimetres (or inches) and over time, all the marks get further apart at every position on the ruler. Imagine that the size increase by a function such as tan(). In a finite time, the size would become infinite.

All I can say is, don't believe everything you see on yootoob. It doesn't "thrust from the ground" it effectively blows air. I have never seen this before but it looks quite simple. It ionizes the air with a very high voltage. This means you have free electrons and positively charged ions (atoms/molecules missing one or more electrons). The electric field makes the electrons move one way and the ions move the other way. I assume the thrust comes from the different mass flowing in each direction.

I assume "lifter" means this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft There doesn't seem to be much mystery about how it works.

Actually, if the concpet already exists, that may mean you ideas is not flawed. It is not quite the same. A linear motor or maglev train uses electromagnetic forces caused by the flow of electrons, rather than just the repulsion of electrons (i.e. static electricity). The problem is that just using the electric repulsion of electrons is hard because you need massive amounts of charge to generate a significant force. And in an atmosphere, the charge will rapidly leak away. This means that the practical uses of this sort of electrostatic force is on quite small scales: moving the ink around in Xerox machines and laser printers, collecting dust in electrostatic air cleaners, controlling the direction of molecules in chemical vapour deposition, etc.