"Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby webolife » Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:57 pm

Bob Ham,
No issues with much of what you're saying. I'm not saying gravitational models are entirely wrong; what I am saying is that the gravitational and electrical [and nuclear, Casimir, van der Waals, et.al.] are unified, ie. they are all demonstrably centropic and universally so. I offer the energy transformation system of hydroelectic power as a "poster" case in point. Pressure of course infers action upon a surface, which is fact the only kind of action that is measurable. It is easier to refer to forces, I simply regard "vectors" as the acting geometric configuration, as an ideal description of action, but in reality, every action occurs or is detected at a surface, a finitely large or small interface, hence pressure is the correct operant condition. Similarly, we refer in speaking of gravitation to the ideal factor of mass [immensely difficult to define], but in reality the operant condition is density, the amount of [centropically] coagulated/coalesced material occupying a particular plot of 3D space. Electrical models in standard thinking operate on very tiny objects [nominally electrons and protons, charges], while in standard thinking gravitation operates upon larger spheres of infuence... the orders of magnitude comparisons are irrelevant, if the forces/pressures are really the same fundamental entity. Whether we end up cling it gravity or electricity doesn't matter if it's all manifestations of the universal "holding" force. Not trying to sound fancy here, probably overly simplifying if anything. But I challenge you to find, or even imagine, any physical gravitational condition that is not fundamentally a collecting of materials composed of "charge", and alternately any electrical condition that is not activated by a "gravitating" field of voltage. EU-ers are fond of complaining about standard physics' magnetic fields being generated about bodies in the absence of the electical field found in experimental setups. But if "gravitation" and "voltage" are really just alternate terms for the same physical condition, what is there to complain about? I've mentioned elsewhere the fact that "charge" and "gravitation" are simply synonyms for "load", experienced at every hierarchal level as centropic pressure.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby willendure » Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:29 am

webolife wrote: I'm not saying gravitational models are entirely wrong; what I am saying is that the gravitational and electrical [and nuclear, Casimir, van der Waals, et.al.] are unified, ie. they are all demonstrably centropic and universally so.


There are many more fields besides the electromagnetic. Proposing that they are all the same thing at a more fundamental level is exactly what 'string theory' is.

The LHC was not built to find the Higgs boson; that was just a detour on its main mission which was to find the super-symmetric particles that string theory predicted. It did not find them, although they could still exist at energies too high for it to reach. Many versions of string theory have been eliminated though with the energy range that the LHC can cover.

That leaves the other unifying hypothesis; quantum loop gravity. QLG proposes that space is made up of tiny grains of space. These are the tiniest things possible roughly the size of the Planck length, below which everything becomes indistinct and un-measurable. No-one knows yet how to experimentally test QLG.

I don't buy the idea that 'voltage' and 'gravitation' are the same thing at all. Gravity always pulls, but voltage can be positive or negative. We could build an anti-gravity machine with nothing more than a high voltage.

Electromagnetism is a field that exists within space. Space is the field of gravity itself. At some deeper level that we are a long way from understanding, it is our intuition they are linked. But the nuts and bolts of how exactly they are linked may require you to accept the standard model as being our best and most accurate, and reasoning with some version of string theory or QLG; are there alternative realistic unifying theories out there?
willendure
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:01 am

webolife wrote:Pressure of course infers action upon a surface, which is fact the only kind of action that is measurable.

If this were true, then the Sun would be pulling Earth by its surface with some sort of negative pressure (negative because it would be pulling, not pushing). So how is it that the soil and sand on the surface of the Earth is not lifted away by the Sun? Is it maybe that the Sun applies a force to the entire Earth, and not just the surface of it? So, like I said, this is a force, not a pressure.

webolife wrote:I simply regard "vectors" as the acting geometric configuration, as an ideal description of action

Everyone uses vectors. Read my paper again. I used vectors in it. What's your point?

webolife wrote:but in reality, every action occurs or is detected at a surface, a finitely large or small interface, hence pressure is the correct operant condition.

Ok, then please show me how you would calculate the correct orbit of the Earth about the Sun using pressure. I did it quickly and accurately using forces, but you're saying pressure is the correct way to do it. Show me.

webolife wrote:Similarly, we refer in speaking of gravitation to the ideal factor of mass [immensely difficult to define]

In what way is mass “immensely difficult to define”? This is one of the easiest things to define in all of physics.

webolife wrote:but in reality the operant condition is density, the amount of [centropically] coagulated/coalesced material occupying a particular plot of 3D space.

Yes, mass density. But this is just another way of describing an object’s mass, so I don’t really see what you’re getting at here. I have heard others also object to the idea that mass can cause gravity, and that it must instead be density that causes it, but that’s exactly the same thing, and it’s what conventional physics has been saying for centuries.

webolife wrote:Electrical models in standard thinking operate on very tiny objects [nominally electrons and protons, charges], while in standard thinking gravitation operates upon larger spheres of infuence...

Wrong. Electrical forces act between objects with charge, regardless of their size. Gravity acts between objects with mass, regardless of their size.

webolife wrote:the orders of magnitude comparisons are irrelevant, if the forces/pressures are really the same fundamental entity.

Getting the answer wrong by 75 orders of magnitude is never irrelevant. I can't believe you would suggest such a thing.

webolife wrote:Whether we end up cling it gravity or electricity doesn't matter if it's all manifestations of the universal "holding" force.

My paper shows that it isn't though.

webolife wrote:But I challenge you to find, or even imagine, any physical gravitational condition that is not fundamentally a collecting of materials composed of "charge"

Neutron stars.

webolife wrote:and alternately any electrical condition that is not activated by a "gravitating" field of voltage.

In order for something to not gravitate (not sure why you’re putting this in quotes), it must have mass. You are essentially asking if there is such thing as a charged particle that doesn’t have mass. The answer is no.

With all due respect, it sounds like you need to learn a little bit more about what conventional physics actually claims before trying to criticize it. Your arguments are far less credible when they lack understanding of even basic scientific principles.
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:38 am

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Planets don't orbit based on approximations and guesswork. They are governed by forces.

Yes, and the dominant force is gravity, according to conventional physics. Each body gravitationally affects every other body in the system. Any force field works this way. It is the same for charged particles where the only thing being considered is electricity. Modeling a system of more than two charged particles with the electric force requires the same n-body methods to solve. Were you not aware of that, or would you claim that electricity is also an “approximation”?
We’re talking about gravity and approximate models are not proof whatever field you’re operating in.

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:You may think the statement "numerical methods can give arbitrary precision" has some sort of scientific meaning but it's a sham.


So then you don’t think it’s possible to model a system of charged particles using electric forces either?
My comment stands. I note you are not disputing it.

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Gravity as the mainstream understands it is an approximation.


No, it isn’t. The gravitational force in Newtonian gravity is given by

Fg = G M m / r2.
Which can’t be analytically modelled so there’s a clearly a problem with it.

Bob_Ham wrote: This is an exact formula, not an approximation. In fact, this takes the exact same form as the electric force, which is given by

Fe = k Q q / r2.

I doubt you will try to argue that the electric force is also an “approximation.”
Irrelevant to any points I'm making.

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:I get that you're convinced it's correct because your mind is closed on the matter.


No, it isn’t. I took the time to investigate electric gravity to see if it held up, and I even took the time to write up my results in LaTex. If my mind was closed, then I wouldn’t have done the calculations in the first place, and I certainly wouldn’t have written them up and posted them here to get feedback.
Clearly it is. My issue is with a small point in your conclusions which to change would have no impact at all on your paper but you are adamant that gravity is correct without any real proof.

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Even after 300+ years of searching and some of the greatest minds applied to it there is still only arbitrary approximations. It should be a piece of cake considering there's only 1 force, so what's wrong?


The same thing that is wrong with modeling a system of particles using the electric force: There are many particles, all of which interact with each other, and the forces between each depend on the distance between each particle and determine where the particles will go next. Yes, in both cases, there is only one force being considered, but each body imposes a different amount of this force on each other, depending on the distances between them. There are lots of calculations to keep track of simultaneously. Have you ever tried to do this kind of calculation, or do you just criticize those who actually work on it?
I’m not criticizing anyone. Never said the models were not useful or worthwhile. Just point out what they actually are. Estimates. Which by the way is not controversial in any way.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:04 am

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Link to this simulation please.


https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1946
”A long-term numerical integration…”. Still trying to use approximations as proof. By their own admission;
A long-term integration does not represent the actual behavior of the planets' motions over the integration time-interval...".
and
The planetary orbits showed only bounded, low-level excursion of their orbital elements.
That doesn't sound like reality.

Also you stated that the shorter the time step the better the precision;
Bob_Ham wrote:No, numerical methods can give arbitrary precision. It just depends on how small your step size is.
The 20Gyr model used 8 days. When the so-called precision was increased;
The time-step used in the 150m and the 15m Laskar experiments was varied from 3 days to 1.2 days.
This happened;
We observed the loss of Mercury from the Solar System in both our 15m and the 150m
Laskar experiments.
Wonder what would happen if they made it super-precise and the step was reduced to 1 second. Would Mercury even last a year?

Still insisting on using these models as proof?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:19 am

Aardwolf wrote:My issue is with a small point in your conclusions which to change would have no impact at all on your paper but you are adamant that gravity is correct without any real proof.

Without any proof? I did the calculation! Read the Background section of my paper.

We measure the orbital speed of the Earth to be 30 km/s. The force of gravity is

Fg = G M m / r2.

The centripetal force is

Fc = m v2 / r.

If gravity is the only reason for the orbit, then Fc = Fg, so

m v2 / r = G M m / r2,

or

v = sqrt(G M / r).

When plugging in the numbers, we get that this orbital speed is 30 km/s, in perfect agreement with the measured value. So yes, gravity gives the correct answer. In fact, it gives the correct answers for all of the planets. Try it. Plug in the numbers yourself for Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. No real proof? Seriously? How can you just ignore something like this?
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:16 am

Bob_Ham wrote:When plugging in the numbers, we get that this orbital speed is 30 km/s, in perfect agreement with the measured value. So yes, gravity gives the correct answer.
What utter garbage. You actually believe this nonsense proves anything. The formulas were derived from observation. To then use the formula to predict the observation isn't proof. It's circular reasoning. However, your strawman argument doesn't change the fact that analytical models using these formulas don't work beyond 2 bodies.

Bob_Ham wrote:In fact, it gives the correct answers for all of the planets. Try it. Plug in the numbers yourself for Mercury, Venus, Mars, etc. No real proof? Seriously? How can you just ignore something like this?
Easy. You don't now the mass of the other planets so it can't be done. All we have are derived masses which are determined by manipulating their densities. Not surprising you want to use circular reasoning to "prove" this as well. I would wager that the Rosetta mission team would have been happier ignoring the mainstream, trusted the EU and just accepted the fact that 67P was made of rock and not snow. They could have then designed a craft that would have had a chance to land properly. Unfortunately for them it's density estimate was based on theoretical bullcrap. They still insist that this quite obvious giant rock, that Philae bounced off, has a density 1/8th of rock.

I note you haven't replied to my post regarding the paper you linked that "proves" gravity. Maybe you can write a paper explaining why the less precise they are, the more they agree with reality.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:59 pm

Aardwolf wrote:The formulas were derived from observation. To then use the formula to predict the observation isn't proof. It's circular reasoning.

Newtonian gravitation also predicts correctly the orbital velocities of all of the planets, orbital velocities of satellites at various altitudes above the Earth, the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the bodies where we’ve sent probes to measure this, and many more things. It’s not like gravity was invented simply to explain the orbit of the Earth. On the contrary, the electromagnetic force cannot explain any of the things I’ve just mentioned.

Aardwolf wrote:Easy. You don't now the mass of the other planets so it can't be done. All we have are derived masses which are determined by manipulating their densities. Not surprising you want to use circular reasoning to "prove" this as well.

Again, the formula for orbital velocity is

v = sqrt(G M / r).

The M in that equation is the mass of the Sun, not the mass of the planet you are considering. The orbital speed of any object is not dependent on that thing’s mass in solar orbit. It is only dependent on that thing’s distance from the Sun. You don’t need to know the masses of those planets to calculate their orbital speeds, smart one.
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:41 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:The formulas were derived from observation. To then use the formula to predict the observation isn't proof. It's circular reasoning.

Newtonian gravitation also predicts correctly the orbital velocities of all of the planets, orbital velocities of satellites at various altitudes above the Earth, the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the bodies where we’ve sent probes to measure this, and many more things. It’s not like gravity was invented simply to explain the orbit of the Earth.
And all derived from one experiment on Earth. Densities of the orbited body are forced into the formulas to make them work. Newtonian gravitation doesn't predict orbital velocities, we observe orbital velocities, and then shift the mass/density of the body to fit the formula. Sending probes to then follow velocities we already knew would happen isn't proof. And bodies that have no satellite or probe do not have accurate estimates. For example in 1930 it was believed that Pluto had a similar mass to Earth;
The solution gave for the mass of Pluto 1.08 ± 0.23 times the mass of the Earth.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/124071/pdf

Way to go with that "prediction". 250 years working with Newton's formulas and that's what was "predicted". They were only off by about 45,000%. Close enough for you I guess.

I find it quite astonishing that an individual that wants to be taken seriously, publishing papers about gravity etc. fails to grasp the simple fact that mass/densities are not measured, they are derived. You sound like you actually believe them to have been somehow independently measured and verified.

Bob_Ham wrote:On the contrary, the electromagnetic force cannot explain any of the things I’ve just mentioned.
Irrelevant again. We're discussing your misunderstanding not EM forces.

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Easy. You don't now the mass of the other planets so it can't be done. All we have are derived masses which are determined by manipulating their densities. Not surprising you want to use circular reasoning to "prove" this as well.

Again, the formula for orbital velocity is

v = sqrt(G M / r).

The M in that equation is the mass of the Sun, not the mass of the planet you are considering. The orbital speed of any object is not dependent on that thing’s mass in solar orbit. It is only dependent on that thing’s distance from the Sun. You don’t need to know the masses of those planets to calculate their orbital speeds, smart one.
I was referring to the use of the formula generally, however, you do need to know the mass of the sun. How was that worked out? Oh yes, by forcing it's mass/density into your calculation. Circular reasoning all the way and proof of nothing.

And you still haven't refuted that when these formulas are actually modelled in any precise way, they don't work.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby querious » Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:39 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:
webolife wrote:But I challenge you to find, or even imagine, any physical gravitational condition that is not fundamentally a collecting of materials composed of "charge"

Neutron stars.


Actually, neutrons are also composed of charged quarks. Not that I support the preposterous notion of dipole gravity, mind you.
querious
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby neilwilkes » Thu Jul 27, 2017 1:35 am

Bob_Ham wrote:
webolife wrote:But I challenge you to find, or even imagine, any physical gravitational condition that is not fundamentally a collecting of materials composed of "charge"

Neutron stars.



More impossible objects.
Neutron Stars are a fiction - it is a physical & chemical impossibility to have a body composed of Neutrons as this violates the "band of stability". If we add Neutrons to the nucleus of any atom we also have to add an almost equal amount of Protons and their accompanying Electrons to get a stable Nucleus. The upper limit of Neutrons/Protons is at best 1.5:1 and anything higher results in an almost instantaneous radioactive decay. If you do not believe me go look at
https://socratic.org/questions/how-is-nuclear-stability-related-to-the-neutron-proton-ratio

So there cannot possibly be any such thing, and the only reason they are claimed is to yet again prop up the "gravity only" models. Try again, Bob.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby antosarai » Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:29 am

neilwilkes wrote:
Bob_Ham wrote:
webolife wrote:But I challenge you to find, or even imagine, any physical gravitational condition that is not fundamentally a collecting of materials composed of "charge"

Neutron stars.

More impossible objects.
Neutron Stars are a fiction - it is a physical & chemical impossibility to have a body composed of Neutrons as this violates the "band of stability". If we add Neutrons to the nucleus of any atom we also have to add an almost equal amount of Protons and their accompanying Electrons to get a stable Nucleus. The upper limit of Neutrons/Protons is at best 1.5:1 and anything higher results in an almost instantaneous radioactive decay. If you do not believe me go look at
https://socratic.org/questions/how-is-nuclear-stability-related-to-the-neutron-proton-ratio
So there cannot possibly be any such thing, and the only reason they are claimed is to yet again prop up the "gravity only" models. Try again, Bob.

As I understand it, yes, neutron stars are considered impossible objects by T-Bolts Group Inc or The Thunderbolts Project™ exactly for this reason. But do these rules related to atomic nucleus apply to degenerate matter? If so, how?
antosarai
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 8:41 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby neilwilkes » Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:05 pm

antosarai wrote:
neilwilkes wrote:
Bob_Ham wrote:
webolife wrote:But I challenge you to find, or even imagine, any physical gravitational condition that is not fundamentally a collecting of materials composed of "charge"

Neutron stars.

More impossible objects.
Neutron Stars are a fiction - it is a physical & chemical impossibility to have a body composed of Neutrons as this violates the "band of stability". If we add Neutrons to the nucleus of any atom we also have to add an almost equal amount of Protons and their accompanying Electrons to get a stable Nucleus. The upper limit of Neutrons/Protons is at best 1.5:1 and anything higher results in an almost instantaneous radioactive decay. If you do not believe me go look at
https://socratic.org/questions/how-is-nuclear-stability-related-to-the-neutron-proton-ratio
So there cannot possibly be any such thing, and the only reason they are claimed is to yet again prop up the "gravity only" models. Try again, Bob.

As I understand it, yes, neutron stars are considered impossible objects by T-Bolts Group Inc or The Thunderbolts Project™ exactly for this reason. But do these rules related to atomic nucleus apply to degenerate matter? If so, how?


What a strange thought.
So-called "degenerate matter" is another type of Unicorn, and the argument goes that it might exist therefore I can posit it's existence. The fact is that it is a chemical impossibility and no amount of fancy mathematics will ever make it real = and does the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" not apply here? I looked up the phrase, and it is another shining example (pun unintended) of circular logic.
The theory requires a super dense object because only gravity has any effect, normal matter will not do it so we have to invent ever more exotic objects that are bad science because the whole concept is non falsifiable - it cannot be tested in a lab by experiment - which is getting very close to pseudoscience. Furthermore, there is not a single shred of actual evidence to prop this concept of "degenerate matter" up.
Ptolemy's epicycles, anyone?

Otherwise I can turn round and claim that the hole in my fence must have been made by a Unicorn because it is the exact same height as a horse and the same width as the horn on it's head would be......but I suspect I would not be allowed to get away with that because it is patently balderdash.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby querious » Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:32 pm

neilwilkes wrote:So-called "degenerate matter" is another type of Unicorn, and the argument goes that it might exist therefore I can posit it's existence.


You get a neutron & electron-neutrino when a proton & electron undergo a weak-force reaction to lower their energy in a hella-strong gravitational field. What is so darn impossible about that?
querious
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby antosarai » Thu Jul 27, 2017 11:08 pm

neilwilkes wrote:(...) The theory requires a super dense object because only gravity has any effect, normal matter will not do it so we have to invent ever more exotic objects that are bad science because the whole concept is non falsifiable - it cannot be tested in a lab by experiment - which is getting very close to pseudoscience. Furthermore, there is not a single shred of actual evidence to prop this concept of "degenerate matter" up. (...)

Isn't the electron gas in metals — occurring under normal conditions of gravity, pressure and temperature, and testable in laboratories — one kind of degenerate matter?
antosarai
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 8:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests