"Electrogravitics Is a Pseudoscience"

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Today I looked up the term "electrogravitics" in The Free Dictionary. It brought up a Wikipedia article "Electrogravitics." The first sentence is "Electrogravitics is a pseudoscience that attempts to find a connection between gravity and electricity":



But if you scroll down to the bottom of the page the link to Wikipedia brings up a revised article:


en.wikipedia.org...

Electrogravitics is claimed to be an unconventional type of effect or anti-gravity propulsion created by an electric field's effect on a mass.


That's progress.

But it's disturbing that a dictionary online shows Wikipedia using the word "pseudoscience" regarding a connection between gravity and electricity when mainstream science cannot define gravity and we know something is powering UFOs.




posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Not really disturbing at all because I would not really refer to the subject as a science either. It is a claimed link that thus far after about 80 years or more has not been proven beyond poor anecdotal evidence, not even a smidgen proven. And no the B-2 is not proof at all.

It would be extremely easy to devise experiments to support theory, so why do the believers or proponents of this theory go ahead and prove it beyond doubt? Suppression i hear you cry... well sorry stop crying it, it is not a valid excuse.

This would assume that UFOs are indeed powered by beings. Quite often the truth is far less interesting.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


What do you think UFOs are powered by?



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
it's OK. they used to give magneto-gravitics the same treatment. Ignoring the fact that relativity calls for at least a weak magneto-gravitic connection. inconvenient for them all around. and given the latest developments with the gravitic London Moment they pretty much had to revise and act as if magneto-gravitics was respectable all along they knew all about it don'cha know. last i checked Magnetism and electricity are intimately connected as well. if magneto-gravitics is respectable then so is electrogravitics. take a magnetic field and run a conductor through it or take a conductor and pass it near a magnetic field... yup they are related. so if magnetism is related to gravity and electricity is related to magnetism then electricity is related to gravity. though it may be that both are indirectly related to gravity via the strong force at least mathematically. E.G; Zvi Bern, Dixon and company's paper.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   
www.esa.int...

www.sciencedaily.com...


Just as a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, so a moving mass generates a gravitomagnetic field. According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the effect is virtually negligible. However, Martin Tajmar, ARC Seibersdorf Research GmbH, Austria; Clovis de Matos, ESA-HQ, Paris; and colleagues have measured the effect in a laboratory.


so the critics can line up to plant a big wet smootchie on my left buttock cheek.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   

stormbringer1701
it's OK. they used to give magneto-gravitics the same treatment.


Thank you. I'm not sure I've ever seen that term before.

It's not in The Free Dictionary, though. I also don't see it in Wikipedia.

The Free Dictionary redirects you to "magneto-gravity," which brings up "magnetogravity wave":


Magnetogravity wave

A magnetogravity wave is a type of plasma wave. A magnetogravity wave is an acoustic gravity wave which is associated with fluctuations in the background magnetic field.[1] In this context, gravity wave refers to a classical fluid wave, and is completely unrelated to the relativistic gravitational wave.

Examples

Magnetogravity waves are found in the corona of the sun.

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...






edit on 02/07/14 by Mary Rose because: Remove request for links



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:26 AM
link   
But anyone can express their opinions about topics on Wikipedia. There have been numerous attempts to link electromagnetism and gravity, starting with Kaluza, who contacted Einstein several years after he published his General Theory of Relativity. Einstein criticised it because it treated the electromagnetic field as a classical field instead of as a quantum field whose messenger particles are photons. What you need to understand is that physicists Glashow, Salam and Weinberg unified the electromagnetic force with the weak interaction back in the 1970s, so there would be little interest amongst physicists in anyone now claiming to have joined just the electromagnetic force to the force of gravity. It is the electro-weak force that has to be connected to gravity, not just one of the components of the former. They would only turn their head if someone claimed that he or she had unified gravity with the three other known forces. Superstring theory is the most promising such attempt so far. That's why many of them would be suspicious about claims surrounding the topic of "electrogravitics". You cannot theoretically link just the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, because the latter is merely one of the four gauge fields of U(1)xSU(2), so that any such attempt would be ignoring Nobel-Prize winning research and subsequent experimental discoveries of the Z^(0), W^(+) & W^(-) that established this.

Unlike traditional encyclopedias, Wikipedia is made up of articles that are not always written by experts; it is NOT an authoritative and reliable source of information. Anyone can submit their opinionated material to Wikipedia, so it ought not to shock you that it contains a negative view about a topic that many physicists wrongly or rightly associate with cranks.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 

Yep.
Wikipedia is not my go-to source for quantum physics research.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


I think Wikipedia reflects mainstream science. And regular enclyclopedias do, too.

I have a quarrel with the mainstream.

I think the fact that UFOs are obviously real, and the fact that mainstream science does not address how they work, shows that we have suppressed technology that needs to be outed and used for the benefit of us all.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   
since the weak force does not even merit it's own boson; i doubt it. the weak force is allegedly carried by short lived mesons which are 2 quark composite particles (hadrons) that dies unless relativistic within a infinitesimally small fraction of a second. there is no "weakon."

the strong force has it's gluon, electromagnetism has it's photon and gravity (at least in quantum gravity) has it's graviton even though relativity denies it even that. the weak force gets even more ripped off than gravity.

not only does general relativity predict a magnetic gravity connection QG predicts a strong force gravity connection. so it seems even if there is an electro weak gravity connection that does not exclude other connections from the other forces.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Mary Rose


Thank you. I'm not sure I've ever seen that term before.

It's not in The Free Dictionary, though. I also don't see it in Wikipedia.








edit on 02/07/14 by Mary Rose because: Remove request for links



In parallel to the experimental evaluation of their conjecture, Tajmar and de Matos also looked for a more refined theoretical model of the Gravitomagnetic London Moment. They took their inspiration from superconductivity. The electromagnetic properties of superconductors are explained in quantum theory by assuming that force-carrying particles, known as photons, gain mass. By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles, known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled.


thats because i did not format it properly going off memory of an article i last read years ago. i do remember the term (when properly rendered) being on wiki though.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Mary Rose
reply to post by micpsi
 


I think Wikipedia reflects mainstream science. And regular enclyclopedias do, too.

I have a quarrel with the mainstream.

I think the fact that UFOs are obviously real, and the fact that mainstream science does not address how they work, shows that we have suppressed technology that needs to be outed and used for the benefit of us all.


I agree. But my point remains: one should not be surprised that Wikipedia tends to reflect mainstream science and scorns anything that suggests the existence of a suppressed extension/alternative to orthodoxy that never gets into the pages of peer-reviewed journals.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


Is this it?


Gravitomagnetism

Gravitoelectromagnetism, abbreviated GEM, refers to a set of formal analogies between the equations for electromagnetism and relativistic gravitation; specifically: between Maxwell's field equations and an approximation, valid under certain conditions, to the Einstein field equations for general relativity. Gravitomagnetism is a widely used term referring specifically to the kinetic effects of gravity, in analogy to the magnetic effects of moving electric charge. The most common version of GEM is valid only far from isolated sources, and for slowly moving test particles.

The analogy and equations differing only by some small factors were first published in 1893, before general relativity, by Oliver Heaviside as a separate theory expanding Newton's law.[1]

Diagram regarding the confirmation of gravitomagnetism by Gravity Probe B:

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
it actually is beginning to look like there is a strong force to gravity connection. N=8 supergravity is looking to have all infinities removed. and one of the paper's coauthors even says in an interview that "crudely speaking a quantum graviton appears to be a doubled copy of a gluon." and "a graviton looks like a a pair of gluons laid one on top of the other"

prl.aps.org...

these guys are not garage dwelling mad psuedoscience type fringers. they won the Sakurai prize for Theoretical Physics for their work.
edit on 7-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


yup. in part
though they sure are doing their best to leave out the Ko0ky bits.
you know the more interesting parts.

edit on 7-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:01 AM
link   
internet hiccough.
edit on 7-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   

stormbringer1701
since the weak force does not even merit it's own boson; i doubt it. the weak force is allegedly carried by short lived mesons which are 2 quark composite particles (hadrons) that dies unless relativistic within a infinitesimally small fraction of a second. there is no "weakon."



Incorrect. The charged and neutral intermediate vector bosons that transmit the weak component of the electroweak force are the spin-1 gauge fields of SU(2). They are not quark-antiquark bound states (mesons). Gauge fields like the Z^(0) are elementary, not composite bound states.

stormbringer1701
not only does general relativity predict a magnetic gravity connection QG predicts a strong force gravity connection. so it seems even if there is an electro weak gravity connection that does not exclude other connections from the other forces.


No, it does not. General Relativity describes only the gravitational field. There have been attempts to generalise this theory from four to 10 space-time dimensions so as to explain the known forces in terms of components of the generalised affine connection. But they remain speculative. Einstein's General Relativity per se does NOT predict magnetic or strong forces.
edit on 7-2-2014 by micpsi because: Typo corrected.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Gravitomagnetism

Gravitoelectromagnetism, abbreviated GEM, refers to a set of formal analogies between the equations for electromagnetism and relativistic gravitation; specifically: between Maxwell's field equations and an approximation, valid under certain conditions, to the Einstein field equations for general relativity. Gravitomagnetism is a widely used term referring specifically to the kinetic effects of gravity, in analogy to the magnetic effects of moving electric charge. The most common version of GEM is valid only far from isolated sources, and for slowly moving test particles. . . .


There are two terms: "gravitomagnetism" and "gravitoelectromagnetism"?



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


These terms refer to either certain analogies between the mathematics of the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field or to the weak-field approximation of Einstein's equations at large distances from the electrically charged body. Neither term has anything to do with unified field theories of gravity and electromagnetism.



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   

micpsi


Incorrect. The charged and neutral intermediate vector bosons that transmit the weak component of the electroweak force are the spin-1 gauge fields of SU(2). They are not quark-antiquark bound states (mesons). Gauge fields like the Z^(0) are elementary, not composite bound states.


ok. i'm discombobulated. i could have swore i read that just a few weeks ago. but now cannot find anything of the sort. so you have me there.


micpsiNo, it does not. General Relativity describes only the gravitational field. There have been attempts to generalise this theory from four to 10 space-time dimensions so as to explain the known forces in terms of components of the generalised affine connection. But they remain speculative. Einstein's General Relativity per se does NOT predict magnetic or strong forces.
edit on 7-2-2014 by micpsi because: Typo corrected.


however i did not state that it predicted those forces per se esp the strong force. i said that general relativity predicts a connection between gravity and magnetism. even then i was summarizing the article i cited With Reference To a gravitic london moment. WRT to the strong force that was WRT a paper on Quantum Gravity; not Relativity.
edit on 7-2-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join