It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Well, sort of but not really. Yes it's true that we can't investigate scales smaller than a planck length since a photon with enough energy to do that would form a black hole, but that's not really the realistic restriction on our knowledge, since we can't begin to come anywhere close to making photons with such energy levels nor can we conceive of any way to do that. So, our knowledge is restricted by more practical considerations of the maximum photon energy we can produce, as opposed the the theoretical limit you mention.
originally posted by: Phantom423
Just thinking outloud here - if the Planck length is the minimum length we can measure and is related to the limit of the amount of energy before it collapses into a black hole, then nature has put a restriction on what we know and what we can't know?
That diagram about gravity being an electric field is clearly contradicted by evidence, and it's so easy for anyone to prove it, that gravity always attracts, while electric fields can repel or attract so they don't behave the same way.
EU is completely at odds, however, with everything modern science has determined about the universe.
"At best, the 'electric universe' is a solution in search of a problem; it seeks to explain things we already understand very well through gravity, plasma and nuclear physics, and the like," said astronomer Phil Plait, who runs the blog Bad Astronomy at Slate. "At worst it's sheer crackpottery like homeopathy and astrology, making claims clearly contradicted by the evidence."
There's really no "electric universe theory" to debunk. I never see any mathematical predictions in electric universe presentations, which are what can tell us if a theory is consistent with observation or not. In fact EU tends to avoid math and that oddly seems to be what followers like about it, but that makes it completely a non-starter for the scientific community who needs to test a model to see if it's true or not, and there's no way to do that without being quantitative, which requires using some math.
"From what I've seen, most EU claims are on the cranky end of [the] scale. That's why most astronomers ignore it: No evidence for it, tons of evidence against it, and no support mathematically or physically."
Electric charges can attract or repel: like charges repel, opposite charges attract. So if the earth is emitting an electric field, all you would need to do is make an object with an electric field such that it repelled the Earth's field and you'd have a type of "anti-gravity", or something that's not attracted to the Earth, but repelled by it. And yet that simple test proves that diagram is wrong. People really have to understand almost no physics at all and be completely unfamiliar with experimental evidence to think that diagram makes any sense when compared to experimental evidence.
all you would need to do is make an object with an electric field such that it repelled the Earth's field and you'd have a type of "anti-gravity"
So in effect gravity is caused by acceleration of energy.