"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 querious » Fri Jul 28, 2017 9:08 am

Dear Mr. Ham,
Your 75 orders of magnitude is being generous, because it seems you forgot to account for the fact that the Earth’s dipoles which are on the other side of the Earth's center work to REPEL the Earth from the sun. And dipoles near the south and north poles contribute nothing.
querious
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:48 am

querious wrote:Dear Mr. Ham,
Your 75 orders of magnitude is being generous, because it seems you forgot to account for the fact that the Earth’s dipoles which are on the other side of the Earth's center work to REPEL the Earth from the sun. And dipoles near the south and north poles contribute nothing.


Yes, I tried to be as generous as possible to test the validity of the model. If being overly generous still makes "electric gravity" impossible, then it is clearly wrong.
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby neilwilkes » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:21 am

querious wrote:
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?


What's a "hella-strong gravitational field" please, and what evidence is there for such a thing in reality apart from and excluding theoretical mathematics and equations? Where is the empirical evidence for any of these objects actually existing? It is Chemistry that tells us a Neutron Star is an impossibility - not EU theorists.
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 » Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:27 am

neilwilkes wrote:
querious wrote:
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?


What's a "hella-strong gravitational field" please, and what evidence is there for such a thing in reality apart from and excluding theoretical mathematics and equations? Where is the empirical evidence for any of these objects actually existing? It is Chemistry that tells us a Neutron Star is an impossibility - not EU theorists.


I should've been more specific - hella-strong is short for "helluva-strong", which is short for "hell of a strong". As for the rest, you can easily look up the evidence for neutron stars.

BTW, what is your opinion of dipole gravity?
querious
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:16 am

neilwilkes wrote: It is Chemistry that tells us a Neutron Star is an impossibility - not EU theorists.

Chemistry tells you a neutron star is an impossibility? Really? Are you sure you know what chemistry actually studies?

As for degenerate matter, it's simply a condition in which all the lowest states are filled, which results in a pressure arising from the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Since fermions can't occupy the same state and can't form a condensate like bosons can, then it is known the the exclusion principle is correct. Degenerate matter and degerate pressure is the natural consequence of that. Neutron stars arise from converting their protons and electrons to neutrons via the p + e -> n + neutrino reaction which is well charcterised in the lab and which occurs at sufficient electron energy. The degenerate pressure of the neutrons is what supports a neutron star against further gravitational collapse.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby querious » Sun Jul 30, 2017 8:43 am

Higgsy wrote:
neilwilkes wrote: It is Chemistry that tells us a Neutron Star is an impossibility - not EU theorists.

Chemistry tells you a neutron star is an impossibility? Really? Are you sure you know what chemistry actually studies?

As for degenerate matter, it's simply a condition in which all the lowest states are filled, which results in a pressure arising from the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Since fermions can't occupy the same state and can't form a condensate like bosons can, then it is known the the exclusion principle is correct. Degenerate matter and degerate pressure is the natural consequence of that. Neutron stars arise from converting their protons and electrons to neutrons via the p + e -> n + neutrino reaction which is well charcterised in the lab and which occurs at sufficient electron energy. The degenerate pressure of the neutrons is what supports a neutron star against further gravitational collapse.


Higgsy,
How come the Pauli Exclusion Principle never makes it onto the list of fundamental forces? It must be physical, since it resists further collapse of the neutron star. But what is the physical basis for this force?
querious
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Jul 30, 2017 12:33 pm

querious wrote:Higgsy,
How come the Pauli Exclusion Principle never makes it onto the list of fundamental forces? It must be physical, since it resists further collapse of the neutron star. But what is the physical basis for this force?

Great question and not easily answered. If you mean what is the underlying physical force or reason that fermions can't occupy the same state, then I don't know the answer and I don't know anyone who does. It's a bit like asking what is the underlying reason for Coulomb's Law. Some might say that it's a property of particles with an antisymmetric wave function or partcles that obey Fermi-Dirac statistics, but that's just saying the same in different words. PEP comes out of quantum field theory as something entirely different from and unlike the classical forces, and seems like a fundamental constraint.

As to making it on to the list of fundamental forces, what force resists the collapse of a main sequence star? Everyone agrees that it is classical gas pressure, but that pressure is not manifested in one of the specific forces. The pressure represents the kinematics of the particles which prevent the collapse. In a similar way, electron degeneracy pressure resists the collapse of a white dwarf. The fundamental mechanism is kinematic but the particle statistics are very different from those of classical statistical mechanics.

The Standard Model forces have force carriers (gauge bosons) but Pauli exclusion does not, and I don't think you can regard it in the same light. That's my take on it anyway.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby querious » Sun Jul 30, 2017 1:26 pm

Higgsy wrote:
querious wrote:Higgsy,
How come the Pauli Exclusion Principle never makes it onto the list of fundamental forces? It must be physical, since it resists further collapse of the neutron star. But what is the physical basis for this force?

Great question and not easily answered. If you mean what is the underlying physical force or reason that fermions can't occupy the same state, then I don't know the answer and I don't know anyone who does. It's a bit like asking what is the underlying reason for Coulomb's Law. Some might say that it's a property of particles with an antisymmetric wave function or partcles that obey Fermi-Dirac statistics, but that's just saying the same in different words. PEP comes out of quantum field theory as something entirely different from and unlike the classical forces, and seems like a fundamental constraint.

As to making it on to the list of fundamental forces, what force resists the collapse of a main sequence star? Everyone agrees that it is classical gas pressure, but that pressure is not manifested in one of the specific forces. The pressure represents the kinematics of the particles which prevent the collapse. In a similar way, electron degeneracy pressure resists the collapse of a white dwarf. The fundamental mechanism is kinematic but the particle statistics are very different from those of classical statistical mechanics.

The Standard Model forces have force carriers (gauge bosons) but Pauli exclusion does not, and I don't think you can regard it in the same light. That's my take on it anyway.


If the density goes higher than the PEP can withstand, does that mean the fermions (quarks) are forced to undergo some sort of transition to a bosonic state? On the way, would they turn into bottom and top quarks as a last step before being forced to turn back into the X & Y bosons of GUT theory?


The Pauli exclusion principle is one of the most important principles in quantum physics, largely because the three types of particles from which ordinary matter is made (electrons, protons and neutrons) are all subject to it, so that all material particles exhibit space-occupying behaviour. Interestingly, though, the principle is not enforced by any physical force understood by mainstream science. When an electron enters an ion, it somehow mysteriously seems to "know" the quantum numbers of the electrons which are already there, and therefore which atomic orbitals it may enter, and which it may not.
querious
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Higgsy » Sun Jul 30, 2017 4:18 pm

querious wrote:If the density goes higher than the PEP can withstand, does that mean the fermions (quarks) are forced to undergo some sort of transition to a bosonic state? On the way, would they turn into bottom and top quarks as a last step before being forced to turn back into the X & Y bosons of GUT theory?.

Well, I don't know whether "the density goes higher than the PEP can withstand" is a meaningful phrase. The collapse ends in an equilibrium. For white dwarfs electron degenerate pressure is sufficient. For higher mass above the Chandresakhar limit, it's neutron degeneracy pressure. For higher masses still above 4 solar masses a black hole forms, and what happens in a black hole stays in a black hole.

Re the rest of your question: sorry, I can't comment - the details of individual hypothesised GUTs and their predicted interactions are pretty specialised and outside my ken.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby querious » Sun Jul 30, 2017 5:30 pm

Higgsy wrote:
querious wrote:Higgsy,
How come the Pauli Exclusion Principle never makes it onto the list of fundamental forces? It must be physical, since it resists further collapse of the neutron star. But what is the physical basis for this force?

Great question and not easily answered. If you mean what is the underlying physical force or reason that fermions can't occupy the same state, then I don't know the answer and I don't know anyone who does.


Looks like, quantitatively, the PEP comes down to the HUP . . .

If a plasma is cooled and under increasing pressure, it will eventually not be possible to compress the plasma any further. This is by the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that two fermions cannot share the same quantum state. When in this highly compressed state, since there is no extra space for any particles, a particle's location is extremely defined. Since the locations of the particles of a highly compressed plasma have very low uncertainty, their momentum is extremely uncertain. This is due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, ΔpΔx ≥ ħ/2, where Δp is the uncertainty in the particle's momentum and Δx is the uncertainty in position. Therefore, even though the plasma is cold, such particles must on average be moving very fast. This leads to the conclusion that, in order to compress an object into a very small space, tremendous force is required to control its particles' momentum.

Now, this just moves the mystery to the HUP level, but I feel a little better now. It still doesn't explain why fermions can't occupy the same place, and thus are "pushed apart" by the HUP. But the PEP/HUP should be included on the list of fundamental forces! When looking at a white dwarf, you are literally seeing macroscopic evidence of the HUP! To some degree this is true with ordinary matter, (the filled electron shells), but mostly it is due to electrical repulsion among nuclei.
querious
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Jul 31, 2017 2:57 am

querious wrote:
Looks like, quantitatively, the PEP comes down to the HUP . . .

Now, this just moves the mystery to the HUP level, but I feel a little better now. It still doesn't explain why fermions can't occupy the same place, and thus are "pushed apart" by the HUP. But the PEP/HUP should be included on the list of fundamental forces! When looking at a white dwarf, you are literally seeing macroscopic evidence of the HUP! To some degree this is true with ordinary matter, (the filled electron shells), but mostly it is due to electrical repulsion among nuclei.

I'm not sure I would look at it like this. Let's start by considering the pressure in a classical gas. Ask yourself which of the three or four (depending on whether you include gravity) fundamental forces is responsible for the pressure? In statistical mechanics, the pressure is derived by the statistics of the particle momentum distributions, and in calculating the equilibrium condition for a main sequence star, none of the fundamental forces is required to derive the balancing condition against the influence of gravity - it all comes from the Maxwellian distribution of the gas particle momenta.

If you measure pressure by enclosing a classical gas in a closed volume and measuring the force exerted on a wall, then you are measuring the momentum condition of the gas, by the exchange of momentum between the gas particles and the wall, and that is mediated (mainly) by the electromagnetic force - but that doesn't mean that the pressure in a classical gas arises from the electromagnetic force.

In the case of a degenerate gas, the PEP forces particles into higher energy states when all low energy states are filled and therefore the particle momentum distribution is different from a classical gas (higher energy at low temperatures, even at absolute zero, and different statistics). If you could enclose a degenerate gas and measure the force it exerts on a wall, the mediating fundamental force would still be (mainly) electromagnetic. In that respect, a degenerate gas is no more mysterious than a classical gas. We don't ask why classical gas pressure isn't included in the fundamental forces, so why should we for a degenerate gas?

I am sure there are many textbooks that cover this, but the one on my shelf is R J Tayler, The stars: their structure and evolution, Cambridge University Press. He derives the equations of stellar structure in Chapter 3, discusses degenerate stars in Chapter 10, and derives the expressions for degenerate pressure in Appendix 3.
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Jul 31, 2017 7:41 am

Aardwolf wrote:
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?
Bob, are you going to respond to this post or have you decided against defending the error in your paper?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Mon Jul 31, 2017 8:59 am

Aardwolf wrote:Bob, are you going to respond to this post or have you decided against defending the error in your paper?

There is no error in my paper regarding gravity. My paper shows that considering the gravitational force from the Sun as the force central to the Earth's orbit gives the correct orbital velocity of the Earth, while considering electromagnetic forces gives nowhere near the correct answer. You are the one who decided to go off on a tangent about the n-body problem, which, of course, also exists for a system of many charged particles considering only electromagnetic forces (or any other system of particles all interacting with each other).

The n-body problem is not relevant to my paper; the Sun-Earth system is a two-body system. Contributions from other bodies are negligible; I am only quoting the orbital velocity of the Earth to one significant figure, and the results for Wal Thornhill's "dipole gravity" give the wrong answer by tens of orders of magnitude. I will stress this again for you: The point of my paper is to test whether or not Wal Thornhill's model holds up. It doesn't. Even if gravity were wrong, this wouldn't suddenly make Thornhill's model right. Thornhill's model has nothing to do with gravity.
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 31, 2017 10:21 am

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Bob, are you going to respond to this post or have you decided against defending the error in your paper?

There is no error in my paper regarding gravity. My paper shows that considering the gravitational force from the Sun as the force central to the Earth's orbit gives the correct orbital velocity of the Earth, while considering electromagnetic forces gives nowhere near the correct answer. You are the one who decided to go off on a tangent about the n-body problem, which, of course, also exists for a system of many charged particles considering only electromagnetic forces (or any other system of particles all interacting with each other).

The n-body problem is not relevant to my paper; the Sun-Earth system is a two-body system. Contributions from other bodies are negligible; I am only quoting the orbital velocity of the Earth to one significant figure, and the results for Wal Thornhill's "dipole gravity" give the wrong answer by tens of orders of magnitude. I will stress this again for you: The point of my paper is to test whether or not Wal Thornhill's model holds up. It doesn't. Even if gravity were wrong, this wouldn't suddenly make Thornhill's model right. Thornhill's model has nothing to do with gravity.
So no, you're not going to defend the error in your paper. Not the broad content, I have no comment on that. I'm talking about your final assertion that "gravity is correct". If the theory cannot calculate for 3+ bodies then the fact it can for 2 is obviously irrelevant. Physics doesn't change depending on how many objects you perceive. If it work's for 2 bodies it's just luck not proof.

Therefore, as I said from the beginning gravity theory is not correct, it's an approximation. The n-body problem is not a tangent argument, it's pertinent to the entire problem with an attraction only theory of celestial mechanics. Clearly you were never taught the problem this causes the theory and like every other non-critical student for the last 350 years just accepted the theory as correct. You assumed that smaller steps within an integrative model made it more representative to a real world scenario, but actually the opposite is true. This is the problem with degree educated individuals, you learn what you are taught, repeat in an exam, and suddenly think you are an expert in the field. No, you're just an expert in what you were told to think. Which is unfortunate for you, because you are stuck with a closed mind and every day the "knowledge" contained within that mind is subject to this;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1155
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Higgsy » Mon Jul 31, 2017 5:37 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
Therefore, as I said from the beginning gravity theory is not correct, it's an approximation. The n-body problem is not a tangent argument, it's pertinent to the entire problem with an attraction only theory of celestial mechanics. Clearly you were never taught the problem this causes the theory and like every other non-critical student for the last 350 years just accepted the theory as correct. You assumed that smaller steps within an integrative model made it more representative to a real world scenario, but actually the opposite is true. This is the problem with degree educated individuals, you learn what you are taught, repeat in an exam, and suddenly think you are an expert in the field. No, you're just an expert in what you were told to think. Which is unfortunate for you, because you are stuck with a closed mind and every day the "knowledge" contained within that mind is subject to this;

This idea that Newtonian gravity is incorrect because WE can't solve general n-body problems analytically is horrendously mixed-up thinking. Why must it be a condition for a theory to be correct that it allows all problems to be solved analytically? That's just complete nonsense. We have overwhelming evidence that the gravitational field from a point mass goes as the inverse square of distance from the mass. It's a very simple relationship, and it appears to be correct to a high level of precision. That's how we put men on the moon, dock space stations and put probes on comets. Now it's a fact that, given that relationship, we cannot find analytical solutions to the general interactions of more than two bodies. (There are some analytical solutions to certain three body cases). So what? Nature does what it does. Inverse square. The fact that we can't describe it with an analytical solution doesn't mean that the inverse square law is wrong, because our ability to find analytical solutions in arbitrarily complex cases is not a criterion to decide whether the theory is correct.

Let me turn this round to give you a chance of seeing how nonsensical your position is. Can you give me an example of a correct theory that gives exact analytical solutions in all real world cases?
Higgsy
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests