Dark side of the Moon

[baudrunner]

I think I finally figured out what you're getting at, and it's something I came up with independently a few decades ago when I was thinking about atoms.

Here it is: Electron clouds carry a negative charge but we still define orbitals, which I interpreted to be merely representative of quantum threshold levels, ie. pump in just enough energy to get a response or take away just enough energy to get a response. So I thought that according to the principle that energy can be neither created or destroyed that there is a constant collapse of negative potential into the positively charged nucleus, as with like and unlike charges attracting, and that this negative potential is immediately replaced by the intelligence within the atom in order to maintain the atom's overall integrity. According to my thinking at the time this is an ongoing process. This suggests that there is a stability to the nucleus that does not allow altering its composition this way other than to apply energy far exceeding this natural process. You see, take away one level of electron potential, as in the sodium atom, and we are still left with the integral atom but with a net positive charge.

Am I right, zeroca?

(this might belong in another forum, I just saw the diagram and I made an assumption. Anyway I'm too lazy to do anything about it now)

[zeroca]

Baudrunner!
Maybe you are right, but I can’t say definitely. In this thread I don’t consider charged particles and regularities in this concern (for now it’s put off), but only that common quality of matter (be it charged or not), which is mass, or weight (I realize that mass is quality of matter, but weight - force), i.e. just that quality of matter, which conditions striving of matter to the center of spinning heavenly body, and spinning-as regularity of heavenly bodies in whole.
Cited by me above examples are imaginary ideal variant of heavenly bodies (elementary heavenly ones). I can only say for certain that gravitational behavior of solid matter (free fall, and spinning – in case of heavenly bodies) isn’t manifestation of charging conditions of matter, i.e. some amount of protons are equally experiencing free fall as some amount of neutrons above any point of Earth’s surface.
As for heavenly bodies, for instance North and South poles of Earth differ from each-other in directions of magnetic field, and it isn’t only said but it is stubborn fact, which we can prove easily with compass. I purposely avoid this side as I’d like to examine pure gravitational-spatial matters.
The question, raised by you, is fundamental. Let’s return to it some later, when we reach some solution with gravity.
As for pairs above, I assumed that the universe consists of only this single pair, in order to generalize afterwards considered results to solve concrete gravitational behavior of pair Earth-Moon, which somehow is complicated, as all the rest part of universe influences on it, (because Earth-Moon isn’t independent system), and I try to seek some essential rules of this behavior, so, briefly I believe that gravitational forces differ from forces among charged particles. Let’s assume it for now and analyze this subject in detail later …

[Guille]

But there is a connection between EM and gravity, this is just something we seem to know, it's part of our intuition. The electric charge of a particle is the conditional for it's mass, or at least it's origin. Whiles the energy of that particle is caused by it's magnetic polarity.

[zeroca]

Might be right;
As I said above I’m not quite sure. I’m disposed to believe that gravitational forces qualitatively differ from EM ones. Let’s assume it for now. The piece of iron (in both – magnetized and non-magnetized states) is falling free equally and despite great EM difference between North and South poles, both parts spin equally. So, as theoretical assumption is up to us, let’s do it and then let’s check its credibility.

[zeroca]

Finally, I came to a holt!
Let’s make a little review:
According to my theory
1.permanent spinning of solid body is a manifestation of permanent centrifugal force, acting inside of solid body.
2. This permanent centrifugal force is repulsive by its nature, i.e. is result of permanent pressure of consisting solid elements on the center of body (or, rather – result of permanent centripetal contraction, concentration, consolidation – call it as you wish).
3. And mentioned consolidation is the result of centrifugal opposite expansion, or rather - rarefaction up to some distance, which is called by me space bubble.

As I noticed, posted by me animation (attachment at the post #33 of this thread) isn’t successful, so I post a new one for consideration. This one is static diagram, but I think is more illustrative for solving purposes:

1. The pair#1 – when space-bodies are disposed with their polar parts to each-other (keep in mind that they are disposed to each-other with their static parts of their space bubbles).
2. The pair# 2 - when space-bodies are disposed with their equatorial parts to each-other (keep in mind that they are disposed to each-other with their spinning parts).
3. The pair# 3 - when space-body A is disposed with its equatorial part to the polar part of space-body B (keep in mind that space-body A with its spinning part is disposed to static part of space-body B).

----According to my theory, if Sun is the amount of expended matter (see the thread Gravity's Opposite: Levity – post #2, or/and the thread mass - post #2, #5), so its matter is fully filling and even overwhelming its own space bubble, so space-body of Sun experiences lacking of striving of matter centripetally inside it, i.e. all matter (substance) of Sun is striving from its center to its periphery radially, i.e. Sun doesn’t’ spin around its own axis according to my theory.

As my dear readers already noticed, I don’t pretend my theory to be a great scientific achievement, but it surely can pass for a fairy tale. So, I claim this tale to be mine, and stop here to post its following parts until I make sure about some organizational matters.
Best regards.
Zeroca.

[Guille]

Zeroca,

I do count your theory as a great fairy tale. I mean, I would like it to be more, of course, but just it has been observed that the sun goes around it's own axis. It has even been mathematically predicted to spin around it's axis. But maybe this could be wrong, and it actually spins around a point which has somehow something special (anti-matter?) and happens to be in the line of it's axis?

[zeroca]

It’s happened for the first time that I ventured to explain subject, not analyzed and cleared up by me beforehand. I wanted to “collect positive energy” from my readers in order to help myself in the process of thinking and to make myself go through without stop, but I reached the point, when I need to emphasize that this tale (even be counted bunkum) is my product. Almost all conclusions have been made for this one month. I see posting day and time on the bar over each post (date of posting), and this already is proving evidence of post’s origin. I don’t mind if anybody copies any content of my posts or article, signs his name and claims to be his (I don’t mean members of our quest), but as for article “dark side of the Moon”, which I’m going to assemble from my posts and publish in a future, I need to know if TOE quest has some legislative ground in case if somebody (I don’t mean members of our quest) appropriates material published here.