It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why cant electromagnetic theory and current physics be combined?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Why cant electromagnetic theory and current physics be combined?

Here are the rules:
1. I am not advocating anything. I am totally impartial.
2. I just ask a question.
3. I think only in systems, that was what caused me to ask this question.
4. Read my lines very carefully, and do not assume anything that I have not written.

So alongst those lines here are my observations:

1. There is electromagnetism (electricity, plasma, also) in the universe, it is an important force
2. There is a theory, in fact many, that this may be more important then we assumed
3. This electromagnetism has been studied, but not deeply, and only in context of current physics (forced fit)
4. Apperantly electromagnetism has been debunked, however it is not really possible to debunk a theory.
5. When it is "debunked" what happens is alternative explanations are given from current physics model.
6. Why is this area not researched more? Why do people feel threatened?
7. Why cant alternative physics theories exist alongside each other, using equations that are universal?
8. Obviously current physics has a budget a million times electromagnetic research, why is this?
9. Cant we gain valueable information from deeply studying electromagnetism?
10. Even current physics has many alternative models (string theory, big bang, multiverse, etc.), why cant this be a school of though.
11. Obviously electromagnatism exist wether we like it or not, so why cannot it be examined more in depth along theoretical models? What is the harm if legitimate scientists take up this viewpoint?
12. They are all systems of though, why the hate?
13. There are paradoxs in every science. Some result may seem as proof or "debunking" may infact be no such thing, looking at it from outside. As this school of though has not been allowed to develop.
14. But at least one who did research it got nobel prize, and contributed to science overall, so it cant be that bad, right?
15. Why is a theory that hasnt had the chance to develop been dismissed.
16. Why cant modern mainstream physics and electromagnetism be combined, fused in such a way, at least some ideas.

I will now observe.

In a nutshell: why cant the universe be electric (electromagnetic)?

Moderators: please feel free to move thread.
edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
Why cant electromagnetic theory and current physics be combined?


what makes you think they are seperate?


Apperantly electromagnetism has been debunked


it has? source for that claim is what exactly?
edit on 23-1-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Well there are many different electromagnetic theories, and no of them are really legitimatly viewed upon, if they claim the driving force of the universe is more then just what current physics says.
Debunking, I found quite a lot if threads debunking the more esoteric models right here.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:22 AM
link   
well its hard to really find the truth because nearly everything published (books,online etc) are pushed by mainstream science...to keep you thinking along there path. but if you rid the "noise" of mainstream medias science and realities you will understand so so so much more. have a look into nikolai tesla, youtube him and you will find other interesting clips, vortex mathematics for example, you will no which are the proper good vids to watch. also google phillip j corso, he has interesting interviews, written and in video available.... like seriously stuff you will laugh at and curse at it sounds that stupid. but thats what real "nature" and "reality" is...its friggen ludacris man!



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by 1beerplease
 


Thank you.
I will further clarify my question:
Why cant the universe be electric?
No need for the other listed stuff, some if which i believe are theories, but with no working models whatsoever.
I am thinking along the lines of working electromagetic theories, with workig models that can be intigrated into mainstream science, not faith based models, such as vortex mathmatics.

So:

Why cant the universe be electromagnetic?

Thats basiy the main question.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
Why cant the universe be electromagnetic?

Thats basiy the main question.
That's not a very specific question. Who said it isn't?

Usually the friction point in the electric universe debate boils down to the source of power for the sun, mainstream says it's nuclear fusion, and electric universe says it's something else which there's no evidence for.

But mainstream has acknowledged electromagnetic effects in the universe for decades. You basically fell for the strawman argument that they don't say that, but they do, for example:

en.wikipedia.org...

The existence of Jupiter's magnetic field was first inferred from observations of radio emissions at the end of the 1950s and was directly observed by the Pioneer 10 spacecraft in 1973.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Thanks, what should I read if I want to know more about electromagnetism as the driving force behind the universe?
What is the established doctrine in physics (theories and such)?
What should I read to understand the 2 schools of though on this subject?
What theories are relevant to this area?

This area has fascinated me, because when I was 5 years old, the class was asked to describe how the universe formed. It seemed natural to me to assume it was some kind of electromagnetic storm or such.
Could never really shake that idea or feeling out of my head.

PS: i never fell for anything. I do not fully understand, thats why I ask. It would just seem natural to me, to be deeply involved in electromagnetic research as a driving force in the universe.
I may have gotten the wrong impression reading these boards, but I never fell for anything

From a school of though, I don't see what the big fuss is.
Its a matter of viewpoint if the universe was created from a big bang or an electric type storm.
I am sure the 2 can even be combined, understanding how systems work and such.
edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Thanks, what should I read if I want to know more about electromagnetism as the driving force behind the universe?
What is the established doctrine in physics (theories and such)?
What should I read to understand the 2 schools of though on this subject?
What theories are relevant to this area?
It doesn't make sense to say "driving force". You deny being victim to straw man arguments, but I don't accept your denial, you are clearly a victim of dichotomy thinking. This is not good.

There are three forces we know of:

1. The strong nuclear force is the strongest and dominates at the smallest scales.
2. Electromagnetism is about 2 orders of magnitude weaker and has an effect sometimes called a 4th force of weak nuclear. On the smallest scales electromagnetism dominates where the nuclear forces drop off.
3. Gravity is about 36 orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism. Based on this huge difference one might say that electromagnetism dominates, but the universe isn't this simple. There is so much matter in the universe that even though gravity is weak, when you add up lots of weak forces you can get something to compete with a much stronger force.

The mathematics, and experimental evidence supporting the math, is well documented for the different forces. Some of it is covered in this powerpoint presentation:

www.cs.unc.edu...

I don't know where you get the ideas that this math isn't well defined and understood, but it generally is. You can take Jupiter for example and calculate precisely the electromagnetic forces versus the gravitational forces associated with Jupiter. There would be some variables like if the sun emitted a CME, a stronger flow of particles would affect Jupiters magnetosphere with a corresponding effect on its EM effects, but gravity would be affected relatively little since the mass of a CME compared to the mass of Jupiter isn't that large. So I think Jupiter would be a case study you could Google for starters. Look up gravitational and EM effects associated with Jupiter. There's a lot of interesting documentation on both if you just search for it.
edit on 23-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: fix link



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

well thanks. I will check out what you recommended.
dictomy is not good, however this is not the case,
are you in essence saying there can only be 1 model?
because if the is the case physics should explain genetics and biochemistry.
I think dichotomy not.
go ahead and explain it, i will await you right here,
i am saying there are many models any schools of thought,
that is not a dichotomy, but the ver definition of open mindedness,
i view systems from above.
to me physics is a system.
electromagnetism is a system,
you may be right, that I do not understand fully but I am in no dichotomy.
also didn't you yourself write the universe is electric?
how can a viewpoint be possible dichotomy?
however where you study the system from (biology, chemistry) does matter, but I await your explanation of the dan with modern physics.

edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

well thanks. I will check out what you recommended.
dictomy is not good, however this is not the case,
are you in essence saying there can only be 1 model?
because if the is the case physics should explain genetics and biochemistry.
I think dichotomy not.
As I said, the other "model" of electric universe proponents isn't a model at all, there's simply no evidence for the sun being powered by some undefined mysterious non-measurable electric current rather than nuclear fusion.

So regarding power of the sun, the alternate model really isn't one, there is no model. So yes, there's only one model I know of regarding how the sun gets its power.

Regarding other claims of electric universe proponents, they present a false dichotomy which in many cases does not exist, like claiming that mainstream denies electromagnetic effects. This is just not so. Mainstream denies that the sun is powered by something other than nuclear fusion, but mainstream does NOT deny that electromagnetic effects occur all over the universe. This is a false straw man argument from EU proponents.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Ok. Thats fine.
So the theory is impartial. I understand that.
I just didn't see the dichotomy in my thought.
I was trying to understand the difference, not set them against each other.
But electromagnetism could be a more important force the currently realized, right?
It merits further study, right?
I think I wills study further in depth.


Do these electric theories have any interesting and ideas of merit that could be plausible interesting for mainstream science?
edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)


So in conclusion I was under the false assumption that these electric people had something resambling a coherent and working theory, but apparently not.
Makes me wonder why they don't just research this within physics departments.

Anyway, really thanks.
I wasn't sure what the big fuss was about, but you have convinced me that electromagnetism is being properly studied by mainstream science, so my questions have been answered.
It is a very interesting area though, I must say that.
Can we use electromagnetism to propel a rocket?
edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
Do these electric theories have any interesting and ideas of merit that could be plausible interesting for mainstream science?
It doesn't hurt to keep scientists on their toes by asking questions. However most of the questions I've seen raised by EU proponents aren't very good, as pointed out in this blog with links to both sides of the "debate" if you can call it that...it's not really a debate in my view. For example mainstream science has considered "tired light" theories many years ago as plausible possibilities, until sufficient evidence was collected to dismiss them. It seems like some EU proponents want to ignore the evidence that mainstream science used to dismiss those theories, and hang on to them in spite of opposing evidence. I'm actually open to looking at any new evidence related to this, but the "tired light" evidence EU proponents have is very shaky or it doesn't really exist.

kestalusrealm.wordpress.com...


Can we use electromagnetism to propel a rocket?
Seven spacecraft are listed here which already use ion drive propulsion.

NASA is looking into using electromagnetism for the booster phase of a rocket launch:

Rail guns, which use a magnetic field to accelerate a mass to high speeds, are being looked at by NASA as a potential space launch system.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

hey, if you are interested in looking for new theories, I have found one that may or may not be interesting.
its called autodynamism.
it has apparently been debunked, but the proponents are adamant this is not the case, still could be bunk though.
1 thing i did check up on, is the the system was tested at some californian college, and failed.
however it was latter learned that the equipment wasn't calibrated properly.
so in essence, who knows.
I actually did check if this was true, and it is. It was never given another chance because of a flawed experiment.
if you haven't heard if this, maybe you should check them out.
i believe they do actually have a theory and even maths, though impartial, but at least it is possible to check if their suggestions and numbers are right...I believe that they can and do provide the equations for the theory on request, I have no way of verifying the maths though.

Ps> i knew about ion thrusters, I wondered if there is any way to use the electromagnetism of space to propel a spaceship. Use the inherent electromagnetic field, or is that a stupid question?
edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 

So most of the world is trying to figure out if neutrinos really go faster than light or not, and you want to ask about a theory that neutrinos don't even exist? Have you really thought this through?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

nope. i don't know their theory that well.
but has anyone actually examined the maths behind it?
off course neutrinos traveling faster then light is much more exciting, have to agree with you there.
still could have merit on the maths alone.
has anyone actually debunked the maths behind it?
because from what i read it all goes back to the flawed experiment.
again, i am not advocating auto dynamism as i hardly know it, it just piques my intellectual curiosity.
no there theory is claiming actual maths and observable results, to my knowledge.

so maybe if you have the time, just out of curiosity you should take a look, or not.
its really up to you.
at least there, you can actually debunk maths and such.
edit on 23-1-2012
by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

here are some equations:
www.autodynamics.org...:59
are they wrong?
edit on 23-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

well thanks. I will check out what you recommended.
dictomy is not good, however this is not the case,
are you in essence saying there can only be 1 model?
because if the is the case physics should explain genetics and biochemistry.
I think dichotomy not.
As I said, the other "model" of electric universe proponents isn't a model at all, there's simply no evidence for the sun being powered by some undefined mysterious non-measurable electric current rather than nuclear fusion.

So regarding power of the sun, the alternate model really isn't one, there is no model. So yes, there's only one model I know of regarding how the sun gets its power.

Regarding other claims of electric universe proponents, they present a false dichotomy which in many cases does not exist, like claiming that mainstream denies electromagnetic effects. This is just not so. Mainstream denies that the sun is powered by something other than nuclear fusion, but mainstream does NOT deny that electromagnetic effects occur all over the universe. This is a false straw man argument from EU proponents.
That is a facinating piece of information you have here, there is no evidence of power source for the sun using the electric universe theory, but mainstream science is using dark energy right now to explain many things and THAT has no evidence either. The OP is wondering why they use one unfalsifiable theory and ignore another, a few people on these boards claim psuedoscience, but is there really such a term as psuedoscience?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
They are combined. Or should I say never separated. Basic electrical engineering textbooks even have a section on electromagnetic principles. In college physics classes, electrical and magnetic theory are tought together. So why do you feel they are separated? Is it because there have not been any amazing technological advances in electromagnetic theories lately. Well, there is a reason for it. Mathematically, electromagnetics has pretty much been figured out. There is no free energy to be found in it, and it is probably not possible to have vehicles that fly based upon electromagnetic principles. So it's like trying to reinvent the wheel. It's beating a dead horse. Weve been there done that.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by cruddas
That is a facinating piece of information you have here, there is no evidence of power source for the sun using the electric universe theory, but mainstream science is using dark energy right now to explain many things and THAT has no evidence either. The OP is wondering why they use one unfalsifiable theory and ignore another, a few people on these boards claim psuedoscience, but is there really such a term as psuedoscience?
You need to make a distinction about dark matter evidence. We do in fact have excellent evidence for the existence of dark matter which could even be called "proof" of sorts. We just have almost no evidence regarding what the dark matter consists of.

Here's some 8 sigma evidence for dark matter, and anything above 5 sigma usually is considered as proof if it stands up to scrutiny, which this seems to have done:

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter


An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen.


There's the proof it exists.

Now what in the heck is it? Nobody knows. If someone can explain those observations satisfactorily another way that would be OK too. But so far nobody has, and it's a mystery. Electric sun proponents have nothing like this 8 sigma proof of the existence of dark matter.


Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

nope. i don't know their theory that well.
but has anyone actually examined the maths behind it?
I don't think you get it. If neutrinos don't exist, why are we debating about whether or not they travel faster than light? Why do you need math to answer that?
edit on 23-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Ohh, i get it.
Dont systems create their own solutions?
Do you get it?
If you are looking at the world from 4 elements, you will create solutions based on that.
If you look in two elements, you will get a system based on that.
So yes, I watch with interest as the cern results are collaborated (i have it on good authority this will happen).
However, it makes no difference to the fact that if the maths is right, then that system will create its own solutions.
I see no problems.
I dont think in absolutes.
Having thought about it, i actually think if the equations are correct, i have some idea as to why and therefores.
Ps: no one to my knowledge has been able to debunk the maths behind ad.
edit on 24-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

More about systems creating their own solutions.
Democracy is a system, it creates its own solutions.
Dictatorship is a system it creates it own solutions.
They address similar issues, but create their own solutions.
Physics is a system, it creates it own solution.
Biology creates its own solution.
If this wasnt the case we would just have 1 science, 1 school.
1 science to rule them all.
Dont you agree?
Now i understand very well that the electric people have been debunked, as rhey have atheory, but no maths or equations.
But ad? It has maths, equations. You too can check it out.
Sonrhe appeal to nutrinos is ludicrous.
If the maths is correct, it will create its own solutions.
Or do you propose it stuck in a parallel world?
Now, do you understand?

If you dont, that would be sad:-(
Again, not promoting anything.
In fact by logic i have come to a conclusion, but i dont know the equations.
That would fall on someone to test.

edit on 24-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
When you look into a fish tank, you have to think about what those fish are doing. What do they think? How do they see the world?

All they have ever seen, for the most part, is your fish tank. Does a fish know where the food is processed? Does the fish know if you are alive, and if it does, does it know there are 7 billion of us? Does the fish know if it is trapped and held captive? Does it care? Would it prefer to be free?

The fish have tiny brains in comparison with our own. They will never come up with complex solutions like Mankind will. They have no idea how complex the power grid that the filter connects too is. Sometime; when the water level gets low, they all report hearing "Strange Sounds."

Now look up at the Universe and ask yourself... what does the Universe think we are doing? I don't think the Universe is really all that concerned with us. It keeps the heat at the right temperature, changes the water every once in awhile, and if the ecosystem collapse, it will clean everything up and try again, or just buy a new tank.

I don't think any weak 1,400 gram sponge can possibly understand what the Universe is doing. The Universe can do whatever it wants. Sometimes you go on vacation for a weekend, and no one feeds the fish. Can you imagine the confusion when everything they know completely changes?

Every theory has it's holes. There is always enough money in the back of the theory to keep it floating, and provide researchers enough time and resources to prove it's accuracy. If we gave some of the other theories an infinite amount of funding and a weapons program, I am sure they could come up with an equally as convincing point.

I am not a religious person, by any means. But I do believe the "God" theory is the most convincing. A "living" creature does what it wants to do, and we have no method of comprehending it. All of our theories are very simple, yet they require massive amounts of intelligence, time, energy and resources to conclude a simple formula that needs to be corrected on occasion.
edit on 24-1-2012 by badconduct because: typos



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join