Ask any question you want about Physics

a reply to: dragonridr

The earth has an atmosphere and it isn't orbiting in Jupiter's magnetosphere, hence no surface arcing.

Io is orbiting in a highly charged environment. Peratt explains the electrical potentials involved on Io and they are enormous. Peratt and Dessler say surface arcing should be expected on Io. That means it would be odd if we did not see any arcing occurring.

If you know so much, why not write up an article refuting Peratt and Dessler and submit it to Astrophysics and Space Science? I'm sure they would love to have that paper wiped off the books. It must gall them that people like me reference it frequently.

As for gravitational waves, I pose the same question to you - Do you believe spacetime is a real physical entity, capable of acting upon matter? Do you believe we are held to the Earth because of bending space?

Because gravitational waves are purely a product of spacetime geometry. They aren't real things any more than spacetime is a real thing.

Arbitrageur didn't answer that question because he's smart enough not to let me corner him on that.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: dragonridr

The earth has an atmosphere and it isn't orbiting in Jupiter's magnetosphere, hence no surface arcing.

Io is orbiting in a highly charged environment. Peratt explains the electrical potentials involved on Io and they are enormous. Peratt and Dessler say surface arcing should be expected on Io. That means it would be odd if we did not see any arcing occurring.

If you know so much, why not write up an article refuting Peratt and Dessler and submit it to Astrophysics and Space Science? I'm sure they would love to have that paper wiped off the books. It must gall them that people like me reference it frequently.

As for gravitational waves, I pose the same question to you - Do you believe spacetime is a real physical entity, capable of acting upon matter? Do you believe we are held to the Earth because of bending space?

Because gravitational waves are purely a product of spacetime geometry. They aren't real things any more than spacetime is a real thing.

Not the question i asked again i see your good at avoiding it i asked about current sheets and what causes them. As for plasma arcs you might want to actually read there paper its not what you believe it to be. Now back to EU how does it explain current sheets around IO? Since gravity isnt involved and its all plasma based i can explain it with the standard model and gravity. Now about gravitational waves this is a prediction from Einstein and required for relativity. If relativity is wrong so is EU since our understanding of wave propagation would be wrong. So far his predictions have been in line with observations made on pulsars for example as well as even gravitational lensing a by product. More interesting however we should get our final answer from here! Also will give us insight into space time the answer your seeking.


holometer.fnal.gov...

originally posted by: zatara
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I have a question..

Why are physicist convinced of a theory of everything? I mean, why should the same rules apply for the 'big world" and the "small world"?

I do not understand much of physics but from what I learned do some really weird things happen at quantum level which we do not observe in the "big world". An other thing is that scientists have great difficulty to merge the two worlds with one theory. So why do physicist are convinced and insist of a TOE and chase the TOE?

Let's put it this way:

Nature behaves in certain ways, on various scales, and all we are trying to do is understand more about how nature behaves. While it's true that quantum effects become more noticeable on smaller scales, quantum theory still applies on larger scales where the quantum effects just become less noticeable. So it isn't so much about scale, its that our two major models, relativity and quantum mechanics, don't work together to tell us what really happens in say a black hole.

Relativity says the black hole reduces to an infinitely dense singularity, but most people don't believe that's what actually happens, rather it's considered a breakdown or failure of the model in that condition. So if that's not really what happens inside a black hole, what really does happen? Nature has an answer because it does whatever it does inside a black hole, but we aren't sure we understand exactly what that is. So our interest in better models relates to our interest in being able to answer questions like that which our current models can't seem to answer satisfactorily.

I would say instead of wanting a "theory of everything" what we really want is to be able to understand and explain everything nature does. It may not be possible to do that with a "theory of everything", but if we have separate theories they should at least be compatible, which relativity and quantum mechanics are not in some situations relating to gravity (like the black hole example).

a reply to: dragonridr

See one coil or two doesnt change whats going on thats where your confusion comes in. In order for this to work as an electro magnet flux has to be created period. See most people like the experimenter here realized the second coil is arbitrary to the device. He could easily power up the other side as well it doesnt change the results. High school kids play with these and the results havnt changed this is really basic science. When a current flows through a metal object it creates an EM field. Theres no magic here there is nothing that science cant explain scam websites try to make it seem magical to buy there plans or kits. Because theres always some fool that sees Ed Leedskalins name on something and think he had a levitation device. He didnt in fact the device you think was impressive was a very poorly made generator.

you still ignoring the fact he can switch the magnetized ends on the U iron core.

There is no circulating flux, the HOLDER has been removed, but you ignore that to

you claim this works with one coil only ??
so please show me an electromagnet whose magnetic core magnetize on one end only...
and don't forget to show me how to switch the poles on and off on this one coil

"this is really basic science" so... show me one coil that can do that
"there is nothing that science cant explain" so do it, explain, but not like you did before with transformers and magnet makers.

how do you polarize a single coil ( you claim one coli is enough) so its pols can be magnetized separately from each other, can be switched on and off .

originally posted by: KrzYma
you still ignoring the fact he can switch the magnetized ends on the U iron core.

There is no circulating flux, the HOLDER has been removed, but you ignore that to

He does use the keeper at the beginning, to create circulating flux, when both ends are magnetized. But you're right, he eventually removes it, which prevents the flux from circulating, which explains his results, but oddly you think it's unexplained.

you claim this works with one coil only ??
so please show me an electromagnet whose magnetic core magnetize on one end only...

If the design is symmetrical, both ends will be magnetized equally. But with no circulating flux, he has a very asymmetrical design, where one end is much further from the active coil from the other end. So you are looking at a result of this and believe it or not theory predicts that if the shape is asymmetrical the magnetic field will also be asymmetrical, "who'd have thunk it"?

and don't forget to show me how to switch the poles on and off on this one coil

He's having a hard time showing that in the video, did you notice at the end he fails to switch the pole off? He never succeeds despite repeated attempts. Well he can't and doesn't explain this, but it's because it's a balancing act to turn the pole off, you have to tap it just long enough to neutralize the magnetic field without reversing it, and he tapped it too long and reversed it and it doesn't turn off at the end of the video, see that?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

and how does it work with only one coil ?
You said this device and those with one coil work the same way.

how do you switch the poles on and off in one coil ??

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist


The spacecraft has an ion detector and a plasma detector to map the environment around Jupiter, also the images are not true colour, they are taken on a monochrome CCD with a filter wheel.

The eruption being a blue colour does not say that it is a plasma arc. I have seen similar pictures, closeups of volcano craters that clearly have red hot material in them...

Like this one, from the wiki
en.wikipedia.org...(spacecraft)#mediaviewer/File:Io_-_Tvashtar_Catena.jpg


Also the nasa page saying they are in the wrong place is a bold statement and jumping to conclusions based upon little more than a statement saying that it is unusual they are placed here based on the simple models we have.

Thats the point isn't it? discover things? figure out what you expect and look at the data? Seems to me that you change your rules left and right more than the mainstream does. And when the mainstream openly admits they are suprised, you look upon it as if they are morons or liars... possibly both.

Any EU people done anything other than the same? Call people idiots to try and give their theories credit? lets get some models from them rather than just flat claims.

a reply to: Arbitrageur
The uploader has another vid I wish I had seen first. I haven't seen one that shows remanence after breaking the connection, until now. Curiosity dwindling.

a reply to: KrzYma
The source I posted before said he built an exact replica of the Leedskalnin PMH, and that the device operated normally with one coil, meaning it would magnetize the keeper (which according to this latest video series you've been posting, is what Leedskalnin says is what's happening, it's magnetizing the keeper, something you denied saying it wasn't a "magnet maker").

Now you're referring to some other experiments, which is not such a close replica of Leedskalnin's design and he's doing different experiments. Also the materials used in construction appear to be different. One of the differences in construction in the crob227 design is that he's using materials which are better at retaining a magnetic field than in the original device in the verbelli video.

So now you're asking essentially why is this different? The answer is, because it's different. Different materials, different design, different experiments (I didn't see Verbelli do these experiments in the video posted earlier).

Aside from the material, another difference is that he is using much smaller coils which I suspect have much fewer windings though I never saw Verbelli or crob227 give the details of their coil counts, did they? But it makes sense you can't fit as many windings in a small coil as in a large one, all else being equal.

So the crob227 u-bolt can hold magnetism better, when activating one coil, it can magnetize the closest pole. A quick tap with reverse polarity on that coil can neutralize the magnetism, and a longer tap can reverse it. Due to the asymmetry of the U-shaped bracket and the fact he's not using the keeper, it only affects the nearest end of the u-bolt and may have some small effect on the opposite end, but not enough to retain the paper clip.

Also, even with the keeper, he is going to have difficulty getting the same results as Verbelli or the other experimenter I cited would, using only one coil. Why? Because his coil is smaller, has fewer windings. Isn't this exactly what you'd expect? A coil with fewer turns creates a less intense magnetic field. So stop taking things that are exactly predicted by theory and presenting them as unsolved mysteries, please. And further if you really want to know how this stuff works, I suggest taking courses in electromagnetism, like I did.

Most of this stuff was figured out pretty darn well before Leedskalnin was even born. He proudly proclaimed his ignorance of what science had already learned as some kind of new model, when the existing models worked far better than his "models" which didn't even make any sense and were contradicted by observation. It's bad enough that Leedskalnin did that, but he really doesn't need followers doing the same thing. And dragonridr is right the whole mythology that he used some magnetic magic to lift rocks is debunked by his tripod pictures with block and tackle attached.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Arbitrageur
The uploader has another vid I wish I had seen first. I haven't seen one that shows remanence after breaking the connection, until now. Curiosity dwindling.

Yes I also watched parts 1-3 earlier to see if I could get some insights on what this experimenter is doing, and yes the results are different than the more faithful PMH replications, due to differences in the materials, coil windings, etc.

i failed at writing a quote above, please excuse that, more than 4 hours passed and i cant edit it

a reply to: ErosA433

The eruption being a blue colour does not say that it is a plasma arc. I have seen similar pictures, closeups of volcano craters that clearly have red hot material in them...

Perhaps, but the outrageous intensity of heat certainly does. Scientists are claiming these eruptions are "ultramafic" - a type of eruption that we have NEVER observed first hand. These types of eruptions are purely inferred, the same way dark matter is inferred. The observed chemical compositions could easily have been created by high intensity electrical discharges rather than "ultramafic" dark matter lava.

I prefer to stick with what we can prove. Again, Peratt and Dessler show arcing should be expected on Io. Do you think they are just making up crap to prove a point? Do you think they don't really know what they are talking about? Do you think there should be no arcing on Io, in contradiction to what Peratt and Dessler said? Why do you think there should be no arcing on Io?

Also the nasa page saying they are in the wrong place is a bold statement and jumping to conclusions based upon little more than a statement saying that it is unusual they are placed here based on the simple models we have.

I'm glad you agree that NASA's models are simplistic. I agree, they are. That's why we should go with what we can prove (surface arcing) rather than assuming these "volcanoes" are the result of some hypothetical volcanic process.

Thats the point isn't it? discover things? figure out what you expect and look at the data? Seems to me that you change your rules left and right more than the mainstream does. And when the mainstream openly admits they are suprised, you look upon it as if they are morons or liars... possibly both.

Any EU people done anything other than the same? Call people idiots to try and give their theories credit? lets get some models from them rather than just flat claims.

You don't seem very interested in discovering things. You ignore good scientific data from Alfven's understudy, a highly credible plasma physicist who works with real plasma in a real lab on a daily basis, and instead listen to crazy theories about "ultramafic" lava that has never been directly observed to exist anywhere.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Ok ill say it again read the paper this isnt about plasma arcs on Io. There discussing a flux tube that runs between Jupiter and Io. It was found to be about 5 million amperes which was higher than expected but was not inexpected. In fact as part of its galileos original mission it was suppose to fly through it. It is caused by the magntic field from Ios core. These plasma arcs occur as sulfur Ions from the eruptions on Io cantact the Jovian atmosphere. Also causes a plasma tale that was recorded by halileo on its fly by. This plasma tail extends from Jupiter nearly 270000 MILES! But unfortunately for your theory its a cold plasma

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist

originally posted by: jrod
Do you think the force of gravity is instantaneous, or travels at a measurable speed, say c?

What about the EM force?

Van Flandern proved it must react instantaneously.

Gravity is an instant force at all distances - wayyyyy beyond the speed of light.

If gravity moved at the speed of light, the Earth would orbit the point where the Sun appears to be in the sky, rather than the place it actually is. It doesn't.

Its been proven gravity propagates at the speed of light by serious scientists.

As it turned out, the Jovian weather cooperated, and everything did go well, until the big day itself. On September 8, the telescope at Saint Croix malfunctioned because of serious tape recording problems. Fortunately, it turned out that the data from other telescopes could compensate for the loss. Although Kopeikin and Fomalont also had to discard about 15 percent of their data because of bad weather on Earth, this still left enough data to carry out the analysis. They compared the position of J0842+1835 on September 8, 2002, with its average position on the off-Jupiter days. Plugging this into Kopeikin's formula for the gravitational field of the moving Jupiter gave them the answer they were looking for. Kopeikin and Fomalont became the first two people to quantitatively measure the speed of gravity, one of the fundamental constants of nature. They found that gravity does move at the same speed as light. Their actual figure was 1.06 times the speed of light, but there was an error of plus or minus 0.21. The results were then announced at the 2002 American Astronomical Society annual meeting in Seattle, Washington.5

The result rules out the possibility that gravity travels instantaneously, as Newton imagined. If it did, a minutely different shift in the position of the quasar would have been visible on the night of September 8. This vindicates Einstein's instinct when formulating his general theory of relativity, which was to assume that the speed of gravity was equal to the speed of light

www.csa.com...

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Likewise you dont really appear all that interested in discovering thing. Im a physicist, my field of expertise is particle physics, namely detector technology, gas purification. I have a background in Astronomy also... so interesting, you disregard many scientists who have presented to you alternative theories to those you follow... and you too ignore them...

Its fine, but cant accuse us of not discussing things, all we get from you typically is just accusations assumptions, broken logic and convenient ignorance of things that don't mix well, and pushing of things that you seem not to be able to prove either.

So guess everyone is equal sir.

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Likewise you dont really appear all that interested in discovering thing. Im a physicist, my field of expertise is particle physics, namely detector technology, gas purification. I have a background in Astronomy also... so interesting, you disregard many scientists who have presented to you alternative theories to those you follow... and you too ignore them...

Its fine, but cant accuse us of not discussing things, all we get from you typically is just accusations assumptions, broken logic and convenient ignorance of things that don't mix well, and pushing of things that you seem not to be able to prove either.

So guess everyone is equal sir.

I'm not ignoring them, I'm pointing out they don't work.

So, do you believe spacetime is a real physical entity that can act upon matter?

a reply to: PhoenixOD

I've looked at Kopeikin's paper, and he has to jump through a ton of hoops to arrive at that conclusion.

Here's an entire dialogue between Kopeikin and Van Flandern arguing about those results:

SUMMARY: Kopeikin uses the expression "the speed of gravity" for the speed of travel of changes in the gravitational potential field responsible for light-bending and radar/radio signal delay, also known as the speed of gravitational waves. No current dispute exists about this speed, which must be the speed of light (c). The Jupiter-quasar appulse may indeed be the first direct measurement of that speed. By contrast, the appulse can provide no information about the propagation speed of gravitational force, which is bounded by many experiments to be much faster than light, and by the most sensitive experiment to exceed 20 billion c. In general relativity, when the solutions to the Einstein equations (which govern the potential) are converted to equations of motion (which describe gravitational acceleration), the assumption of infinite speed of gravitational force is implicitly adopted by setting aberration in the gradient of the potential equal to zero.

metaresearch.org...

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Ive also looked at the papers and nobody agrees with an aberration value of 0. You can not ignore the effects of aberration.

Van Flandern also believed that the 'face' on mars was not a natural formation but now we know better

a reply to: PhoenixOD

Yeah he had some kooky ideas about martians, but his physics was sound. I personally think the issue is settled by looking at our own Earth's orbit around the Sun.

I mean why go through all the hoops Kopeikin did when the freaking Sun is right there? It just leads to more potential problems.

Oh by the way, do you believe spacetime is a real physical entity that can act upon matter?

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Absolutely without a doubt yes.

originally posted by: Poppcocked
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Absolutely without a doubt yes.

I can tell you're not a professional physicist.

A pro would ignore that question.

It's actually quite a fascinating phenomena. Their brains automatically blank it out like a person who has dissociative amnesia.

Ya know, I find this to be a fairly interesting topic. These guys are a case study for psychogenic amnesia arising from pure cognitive dissonance.

They know they can't say yes, but they also can't say no either.

It leads to a mental implosion.