Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

ImaFungi

hm ok. So with like DC, direct current, isnt this linearly sending electrons from point A to point B, and are the electrons that say, are pumped into a computer 'used'.

Don't get that one.

Also isnt the matter of stars largely converted into radiation...

Not so much. When you fuse light elements (up to iron, anyway) the end result is actually less massive than the two components you put together. Again, all the bits and pieces are still there, but the aggregate is lighter than the parts. The difference in mass is a loss of binding energy, and that's where the energy of fusion comes from. For massive particles heavier than iron, as I said, they are lighter when they come apart than when they were together, same result. This mass difference ends up in radiation, yet, all the bits and pieces are still there.

The only way you convert non-decaying particles to pure energy is with an anti-particle, and in that case, the charge balance is always neutral.

eta: although I suppose if you could get it HOT enough, they might become "quark soup" but even in that case you've still got all the constituent quarks and they'll reassemble into matter when it cools down...

Bedlam
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Pretty close. The fan can make wind, the wind can turn the fan, but the wind is not the fan even though windness and fanness may be related. It's not a good analogy but it's at least visualizable.

Or as Kirk just said, my foot can make a ripple in a lake that makes the boat rock in sympathy, but the ripple doesn't convey toe cheese to the boat.

With all the analogies it struck me that your fan and wind explanation is most similar to current scientifically accepted explanations of EM interactions.

If we take your example about fan and wind it all seems "weird" until you realise that it is the gaseous environment (or Air within a planetary confine) itself which is not either a "fan" or "wind" which provides the mechanism of action for the effects observed.

When the fan moves air, the air behaves in a specific way due to an averaging out effect of all interspatial components affecting it at the time of observation within the system it exists.

If space itself can be hypothesised to be a superfluid vacum with Bose Einstein Condensate properties, this EM exchange of energy through space suddenly makes sense.

Space itself provides the "constants of nature" ...a photon cannot exceed c because that is the average maximum of informational exchange through space.
( Picture quantum manifolds derived from fractal symmetries that need to be negotiated by the photon as the event is propagated through space).

With space being a "something" rather than a "nothing", Gravity can be the average density (or number of space quanta in any given locality) of space itself...with included explanation for black holes (space quanta gradient).

Scientists marvel at how much "space" there actually is ( in the universe or even between atoms) but this is the medium in which our reality is materialized....literally it would seem.

reply to post by Bedlam


Earlier you said in a sane world...meaning not to discuss ideas of potentially quarks and electrons decaying in hundreds or thousands of billions of years? But if that does occur, what would have happened to charge?

If that doesnt occur, how did a singular event create a quanta of material that is eternal?

reply to post by Jukiodone


I just realized how much I like the fan analogy as well. Because I know it might not be physical spin like a fan, but dont electrons have spin? Well what I really want to say is that, in two magnets N------S N------S The electrons are facing the same way, this is what allows magnetism, which must mean that according to the direction an electron is facing something is occurring in front of it, oppositely then what is occurring behind it. If you think about a fan from one end does it not blow, and the other suck? If you look at a fan from one side it is spinning clockwise, and the other side counterclockwise. So perhaps in the analogy, the air is the EM field, fans are electrons, and when the fans are aligned in a specific way because they are constantly spinning and twisting the air in front of them and behind them, it causes all other fans to interact and behave with these twists, the more fan power/more fans in one area the more it can twist and affect other fans. And electricity I guess would be something like causing the electrons to alter their alignment, causing energy disturbance in the field, which is passed on to alter the alignment of the next closest electrons which cause energy disturbance in the field, which is passed on to alter the alignment of the next closest electrons etc.

Post deleted by JohnPhoenix ( hey thats Me!) cus.. er.. ATS keeps chopping up my post. I'll try again. Also I notice the Preview button isn't working in Edit for me.. Strange Days. I do hope no one else are getting these bugs and it's something on my end.

Posted by Arbitrageur:

Originally posted by Mary Rose
So, you believe that gravity is king in the universe, do you?

This is science dumbed down to the point it's beyond meaningless.

Gravity is more than a trillion trillion trillion times weaker than electromagnetism, so it sounds ridiculous to talk about gravity being "king" in this context.
It's even more ridiculous to talk about electric powered stars with no evidence of sufficient electric current to power the star. Yes, stars have many electromagnetic properties, but nobody has ever measured the electric currents that electric universe pseudoscientists say is powering them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If gravity is so weak, what holds the planets in their orbits?

The gravity of the Sun keeps the planets in their orbits. They stay in their orbits because there is no other force in the Solar System which can stop them.

coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...

Mainstream science attributes the awesome planetary orbit rigidity to Gravity. That sounds like some calling it King to me.

I think we should look locally at the over all power of gravity spread throughout the surface of Earth. This would be a LOT of force we could possible channel and use for good - free energy - if you could tap Gravity, why not?

Just read an interesting theory about why this awesome power of Gravity don't crush all of us Humans - something scientists have struggled to explain the article says. They got off into there being a 4th dimension ( No kidding) and it seems to be taken seriously by some. io9.com...

No one has gone to the Sun and measured any reactions to confirm the standard theory either. I don't think we know it all about these objects and it's dangerous to think we are already there. I can see exploring another theories. Since no one will have it just right you can learn from all of them.

JohnPhoenix
Mainstream science attributes the awesome planetary orbit rigidity to Gravity. That sounds like some calling it King to me.

Wut? I don't know what any of that is supposed to mean.

I think we should look locally at the over all power of gravity spread throughout the surface of Earth. This would be a LOT of force we could possible channel and use for good - free energy - if you could tap Gravity, why not?

Because that doesn't make any sense.

Just read an interesting theory about why this awesome power of Gravity don't crush all of us Humans - something scientists have struggled to explain the article says.

The referenced article is about why gravity is so weak, when one might have thought it would be very strong. Which is exactly correct: gravity is weaker than all other forces. It only shows itself over large distances because the other forces either have very short range (nuclear forces), or cancel themselves out over large distances (electromagnetic forces).

No one has gone to the Sun and measured any reactions to confirm the standard theory either.

Right, except for the fleet of satellites orbiting close to the sun, monitoring it constantly. And the solar wind from the sun we've measured from satellites, and collected and brought back to Earth to analyze. And the countless methods we have to see inside the sun to various depths, and measure its internal structure.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Are you insane weve studied the sun and still are you seriously doubt fusion is taking place? Weve monitored the energy output. Weve analyzed its content through spectroscopes and measure hydrogen and helium composition.By the way in an electric sun no way to account for helium.We confirmed fusion reactions with neutrinos emissions. Please explain how neutrinos can be created without fission?

So ill sum it up Please explain how helium is being produced in the sun?

Where are the nuetrinos comming from in an electric sun?

And heres a big one please explain how solar wind can have both positive and negatively charged particles in an electric sun?

JohnPhoenix

If gravity is so weak, what holds the planets in their orbits?

There is lots of evidence that gravity is holding planets in their orbits, and no evidence that other forces dominate planetary orbits. Do you have any evidence of this? No, I didn't think so.

The explanation is simple. Pennies have weak spending power compared to $100 dollar bills.

But, if you have enough pennies, they can add up to more spending power than a stack of $100 bills. It turns out there's a lot of matter in the sun, so even though the gravitational influence of any one atom is weak, gravity of the sun makes up for in numbers of atoms, what it lacks in gravitational strength of each atom.

JohnPhoenix
I think we should look locally at the over all power of gravity spread throughout the surface of Earth. This would be a LOT of force we could possible channel and use for good - free energy - if you could tap Gravity, why not?

I would love to be proven wrong about physics and see this RAR Energia contraption work (which I assume is the type of "free energy" you're talking about), but unfortunately I'm not wrong and it's just another waste of money by someone who has deep pockets and shallow brains, like Blacklight power. It's ok though, they are just doing one more experiment that will prove the laws of physics as we know them are not wrong (at least they aren't wrong about what is involved with this device).

But for people not in the deep pockets/shallow brains camp, there are hydroelectric dams, which work partially via exploiting gravitational forces, but just partially. They need more than that to work (energy from the sun to evaporate water, and a condensation cycle which rains on higher elevations).

www.rarenergia.com.br...

Just read an interesting theory about why this awesome power of Gravity don't crush all of us Humans - something scientists have struggled to explain the article says. They got off into there being a 4th dimension ( No kidding) and it seems to be taken seriously by some. io9.com...

Actually there is some simple math/science behind the idea that tall skinny creatures probably can't exist on heavy gravity worlds if they are constructed like us because the strength of bone only increases with the square of dimensions, but volume and weight increase with the cube of dimensions.

Square-Cube Law

As was elucidated by J. B. S. Haldane, large animals do not look like small animals: an elephant cannot be mistaken for a mouse scaled up in size. The bones of an elephant are necessarily proportionately much larger than the bones of a mouse, because they must carry proportionately higher weight. To quote from Haldane's seminal essay On Being the Right Size, "...consider a man 60 feet high...Giant Pope and Giant Pagan in the illustrated Pilgrim's Progress.... These monsters...weighed 1000 times as much as Christian. Every square inch of a giant bone had to support 10 times the weight borne by a square inch of human bone. As the human thigh-bone breaks under about 10 times the human weight, Pope and Pagan would have broken their thighs every time they took a step."

This is extremely simple geometry and math, which doesn't require any fourth dimension to explain, unless time is the 4th dimension.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


If the earths velocity of orbit was twice as fast as it is now, would gravity be twice as strong? Also if the earth suddenly stopped moving would we all be flung off into space? Would a body be compelled to orbit another massive body if the massive body is not orbiting anything or rotating? If a body exists in free space at a random point between the most distant galaxies, does it fall, or can it stand still, or will dark energy compel it to move?

Also I can imagine a gravity engine working, if you bounce a ball and it comes up but loses energy each bounce because of friction and air resistance and factors, if you can eliminate as much friction and air resistance as possible, and have some type of mechanism to give whatever is coming up after going down, a mechanical boost to its starting position that requires little to know energy, a gravity engine would be like the principle of newtons cradle, just need some kind of arm to allow the ball to be urged into the starting point...im sure strong magnets would be a good place to look, to give that boost, and it looks like in that pic there are hydraulics at use.

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

If the earths velocity of orbit was twice as fast as it is now, would gravity be twice as strong? Also if the earth suddenly stopped moving would we all be flung off into space? Would a body be compelled to orbit another massive body if the massive body is not orbiting anything or rotating? If a body exists in free space at a random point between the most distant galaxies, does it fall, or can it stand still, or will dark energy compel it to move?

Also I can imagine a gravity engine working, if you bounce a ball and it comes up but loses energy each bounce because of friction and air resistance and factors, if you can eliminate as much friction and air resistance as possible, and have some type of mechanism to give whatever is coming up after going down, a mechanical boost to its starting position that requires little to know energy, a gravity engine would be like the principle of newtons cradle, just need some kind of arm to allow the ball to be urged into the starting point...im sure strong magnets would be a good place to look, to give that boost, and it looks like in that pic there are hydraulics at use.

edit on 24-9-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

Gravity has nothing to do with velocity other then maintaining an orbit. Gravity doesnt increase or decrease with speed only mass. So if the earth just stood still in space we would still have the exact same gravity.However it would cause another problem. The earth is in perpetual free fall. Lets see if i can explain this we are inside the suns gravity well the earth is constantly falling towards the sun. However luckily for us centrifugal force is countering that free fall. If the earth was moving slower we head for the sun. If we move faster away. Very much like our moon is currently getting further from earth.

Gravity wells do not give you energy they take energy.Then there is the 1st law of Thermodynamics is says energy can be transformed from one form to another, but it can't be created or destroyed.And then there is the second law of thermodynamics, all energy shifts will incur entropy, meaning that something is lost. Now trying to use gravity the problem becomes even at 100 percent efficiency i can keep it moving but i cant gt any extra energy its not there. So in theory you can keep a wheel going except for that pesky 2nd law. But all the energy i get from gravity would have to be used to keep it in motion defeats the purpose.

dragonridr

Gravity has nothing to do with velocity other then maintaining an orbit. Gravity doesnt increase or decrease with speed only mass.

Ah but doesnt an increase in mass mean an increase in gravity? And I was also suggesting the relationship or similarity between inertia and phenomenon of gravity.

Say I have a bouncy ball with a pretty strong magnet inside. i am holding the bouncy ball and there is a pretty strong magnet above my hand (i know this takes energy but maybe it can be turned on and off...so I guess its electromagnetic), if I drop the ball it will impart energy onto the ground it hits right, and it will not bounce exactly to the height I dropped it at, but some bouncy balls can do pretty well, and without air resistance, and the most frictionless surfaces maybe it can get pretty good. So then if the magnet is turned on as the ball is heading towards it on its way up, it will give it a boost to get to its original height via magnetic attraction, then it can be turned off immediately or instantly and the drop, and impartment of energy would occur again. This principle could potentially be used in more sophisticated manners, with hydraulics, super frictionless materials, and most likely many other mechanisms I am not familiar with.

Also you say gravity doesnt give energy it takes it? So a rock that is loosened and starts to tumble down a hill has not gained energy via gravity?

Arbitrageur
There is lots of evidence that gravity is holding planets in their orbits, and no evidence that other forces dominate planetary orbits.

I think an open mind and curiosity is called for. Gravity needs more definition. Maybe it has to do with matter but not in the way we've thought.

From Wal Thornhill's "Electric Gravity":

In 1850, Faraday performed experiments trying to link gravity with electromagnetism that were unsuccessful. However, his conviction remained:

“The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.” [12]

Faraday’s estimate of the importance of such a connection still stands. Today, there are a number of scholars pursuing this obvious line of inquiry. After all, the electrical and gravitational forces share fundamental characteristics—they both diminish with the inverse square of the distance; they are both proportional to the product of the interacting masses or charges; and both forces act along the line between them.

ImaFungi
Also you say gravity doesnt give energy it takes it? So a rock that is loosened and starts to tumble down a hill has not gained energy via gravity?

Actually, as it moves down the hill it loses gravitational potential energy. The equation for that is mgh, as h becomes less, the potential energy decreases. So you're converting gpe to mechanical kinetic energy.

This, by the way, is what that Italian crankshaft travesty doesn't work. mgh is symmetric. It's the same going down as coming up. There's no hope of going down releasing more energy than the upstroke side. It's identical.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Except he left out the part where you could say "...and electric fields are easily detectable, and gravitic forces exist where electric fields do not, so obviously they are not the same, end of electric universe, so sad"

reply to post by Bedlam


Sounds like you're both saying that, in a sense, electricity is never created nor destroyed, but is a force unto itself.

Are you human or the parts that make up your human body?
Is electric a force or the combination of fields that make up the force?
And who gets to decide how to define it and why them?

He that can measure his concept is the ruler of concepts? What if you are not given an image to measure but you are sure it is there because its likeness is imaged?

reply to post by Bedlam


He's got more to say:

What is gravity?

Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons. [18] The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field.

The 2,000-fold difference in mass of the proton and neutron in the nucleus versus the electron means that gravity will maintain charge polarization by offsetting the nucleus within each atom (as shown). The mass of a body is an electrical variable—just like a proton in a particle accelerator. Therefore, the so-called gravitational constant—‘G’ with the peculiar dimension [L]3/[M][T]2, is a variable! That is why ‘G’ is so difficult to pin down.

ImaFungi

dragonridr

Gravity has nothing to do with velocity other then maintaining an orbit. Gravity doesnt increase or decrease with speed only mass.

Ah but doesnt an increase in mass mean an increase in gravity? And I was also suggesting the relationship or similarity between inertia and phenomenon of gravity.

Say I have a bouncy ball with a pretty strong magnet inside. i am holding the bouncy ball and there is a pretty strong magnet above my hand (i know this takes energy but maybe it can be turned on and off...so I guess its electromagnetic), if I drop the ball it will impart energy onto the ground it hits right, and it will not bounce exactly to the height I dropped it at, but some bouncy balls can do pretty well, and without air resistance, and the most frictionless surfaces maybe it can get pretty good. So then if the magnet is turned on as the ball is heading towards it on its way up, it will give it a boost to get to its original height via magnetic attraction, then it can be turned off immediately or instantly and the drop, and impartment of energy would occur again. This principle could potentially be used in more sophisticated manners, with hydraulics, super frictionless materials, and most likely many other mechanisms I am not familiar with.

Also you say gravity doesnt give energy it takes it? So a rock that is loosened and starts to tumble down a hill has not gained energy via gravity?

Simple answer no it hasnt the potential energy was all ready there. There is nothing gained by the rock that wasnt all ready there if there were no potential energy it would all ready be at the bottom.

reply to post by Mary Rose


We dont need definition of gravity we understand what it is.What we truly dont understand is mass itself.We are learning about the higgs field.Like only mass occurs when its not travelling at the speed of light.The key anything slower then the speed of light contains mass.Would it surprise you if i said mass is simply a particle not moving at the speed of light? Mass is simply a particle moving slower then the speed of light.So the one true unifying force in the universe is momentum.Electricity was the latest rage for scientists back then and they were making all kinds of miraculous claims. But thats because at the time they didnt understand it.Gravity cannot be induced with electricity you can create a magnetic field. However thats not the same as gravity since gravity effects anything with mass.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Yep, and nonetheless, you can easily detect electric fields. And gravity exists where there are none. The end. It's really that simple. You just can't attribute all gravitic attraction to electrostatic fields.