Originally posted by: acsinuk
"In new physics the electric and magnetic force effects need to be considered and never ignored."
Yes but what about gravity, and the strong and weak force, don't they need to be considered as well? As to ignoring things: engineers can choose to ignore things by making simplifying assumptions, so can physicists.
If the time is now right not to ignore anything then should not the new physics you propose encompass all the fundamental forces we have so far discovered.
"In an electric universe there can be no neutral matter only seemingly neutral matter, because if the outside enclosure is at the same potential as the inner charge you can touch it without a shock."
What do you mean by "seemingly neutral"? I think you are thinking about what happens at the earths surface and are implicitly applying that in analogy to what happens inregards to atoms and elementary particles. This doesn't work.
All individual atoms are electrically neutral in an absolute sense. They can't be accelerated in an electric field. The neutron is neutral in an absolute sense, it can't be accelerated in an electric field. The anti-neutron is neutral in an absolute sense, it can't be accelerated in an electric field.
As you know, on the earths surface, earth connections to ground are not "absolutely" neutral. For one thing the earth's surface is negatively charged relative to the atmosphere and there is an open air fair weather electric field of around -100 V/m (which can be measured with a field mill containing an electrometer). In addition to this there are eddy currents induced in earth's surface by charged ion and electron currents in the ionosphere above.
The eddy currents create a daily varying potential difference between distant earthed points can be measured by running insulated wires between them and attaching them to a voltmeter. (if electrochemical potentials are present they change very slowly, and don't depend on the distance between the two earth points used).
Earth connections to ground are not "absolutely" neutral anywhere on earth, just approximately so in fair weather (normally within a few hundred volts or so). We normally choose by convention assign an earth point with a zero potential, so I suppose this is what you mean by "seemingly neutral".
[Is an electrical connection to the inside an externally earthed faraday cage, an absolute zero reference potential for example?
No it's just at earth potential just like any other earth.
So can we in a single place make voltage measurements relative to an absolute zero reference potential?
I am not sure. People claim to be able to measure this sort of thing, although I have never tried. Apparently if you leave a very well insulated capacitor in a small sealed faraday cage (with low background radioactivity) and connect one end to earth, and then after briefly connecting the other end to earth, leave it disconnected from then on.
Then using an electrometer measure the potential of the open end of the capacitor every now and again over time; this apparently gives the local earth potential at a single place relative to what it was when the open connection of the capacitor was last earthed, and how this varies over time.
If this works experimentally it probably works best at locations where the variation and size of daily earth currents is strongest.]
"This [matter seemingly neutral] means that neutrons are really negatrons enclosed in a negative electron shell."
You now apply your analogy concerning earthing things on the earths surface and then try to apply this to the domain of atoms and elementary particles.
I assume by negatron you mean an anti-proton, which is negatively charged. So in your view two particles with the same negative charge can combine together somehow to make a neutral particle or a "seemingly" neutral particle. This makes no sense to me.
Free neutrons decay to a proton, an electron and neutrino. The conservation of charge law applies exactly for elementary particles; neutrons really are "absolutely" neutral, not "approximately" neutral or "relatively" neutral or indeed "seemingly" neutral.
How can you make a model where the free charge of an elementary particle depends somehow on its environment or the nature of the particle it is paired with? This doesn't make sense to me.
"Anti-neutrons would need to be protons enclosed in a positron shell."
Anti-Neutrons really are "absolutely" neutral.
Anti-Neutrons are definitely not positively charged as you suggest.
How can Anti-Neutrons be positively charges and neutrons be negatively charged, whilst at the same time both being neutral and having no discernable charge?
"At creation you want to force the negative matter outwards and keep the antimatter inside."
I don't understand. Antimatter can have a positive charge (positron) or a negative charge (anti-proton). The anti-proton would have to be inside and outside at the same time according to this statement.
"If they ever meet they would annihilate with remaining spin energy signature emitted as a photon. The law of conservation of charge is then doubly confirmed."
I don't understand. All your statements above seem to ignore the conservation of charge.
"The solar wind is comprised of ionised H+ which means there is a voltage in space pulling the ion forward."
No I think there are roughly equal numbers of positive ions and electrons.
"Particle physicists are again ignoring the voltage effects and trying to make old Newtonian constant velocity physics fit."
You are proposing a model that includes some sort of potential differences across space accelerating charged particles, so act to neutralise that potential difference over time.
How are the potential differences maintained or created in the first place?
Is it not far better to model the solar wind as consisting of outer layers of an ionized solar atmosphere expanding out with enough pressure to beat the sun's gravitational field in a vain attempt to fill and pressurize a vacuum the size of the universe?