"Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
- webolife
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
- Location: Seattle
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
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.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.
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?
- Bob_Ham
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
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:Pressure of course infers action upon a surface, which is fact the only kind of action that is measurable.
Everyone uses vectors. Read my paper again. I used vectors in it. What's your point?webolife wrote:I simply regard "vectors" as the acting geometric configuration, as an ideal description of action
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: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.
In what way is mass “immensely difficult to define”? This is one of the easiest things to define in all of physics.webolife wrote:Similarly, we refer in speaking of gravitation to the ideal factor of mass [immensely difficult to define]
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:but in reality the operant condition is density, the amount of [centropically] coagulated/coalesced material occupying a particular plot of 3D space.
Wrong. Electrical forces act between objects with charge, regardless of their size. Gravity acts between objects with mass, regardless of their size.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...
Getting the answer wrong by 75 orders of magnitude is never irrelevant. I can't believe you would suggest such a thing.webolife wrote:the orders of magnitude comparisons are irrelevant, if the forces/pressures are really the same fundamental entity.
My paper shows that it isn't though.webolife wrote:Whether we end up cling it gravity or electricity doesn't matter if it's all manifestations of the universal "holding" force.
Neutron stars.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"
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.webolife wrote:and alternately any electrical condition that is not activated by a "gravitating" field of voltage.
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.
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
We’re talking about gravity and approximate models are not proof whatever field you’re operating in.Bob_Ham wrote: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”?Aardwolf wrote:Planets don't orbit based on approximations and guesswork. They are governed by forces.
My comment stands. I note you are not disputing it.Bob_Ham wrote:So then you don’t think it’s possible to model a system of charged particles using electric forces either?Aardwolf wrote:You may think the statement "numerical methods can give arbitrary precision" has some sort of scientific meaning but it's a sham.
Which can’t be analytically modelled so there’s a clearly a problem with it.Bob_Ham wrote:No, it isn’t. The gravitational force in Newtonian gravity is given byAardwolf wrote:Gravity as the mainstream understands it is an approximation.
Fg = G M m / r2.
Irrelevant to any points I'm making.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.”
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: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.Aardwolf wrote:I get that you're convinced it's correct because your mind is closed on the matter.
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.Bob_Ham wrote: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?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?
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
”A long-term numerical integration…”. Still trying to use approximations as proof. By their own admission;Bob_Ham wrote:https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1946Aardwolf wrote:Link to this simulation please.
andA long-term integration does not represent the actual behavior of the planets' motions over the integration time-interval...".
That doesn't sound like reality.The planetary orbits showed only bounded, low-level excursion of their orbital elements.
Also you stated that the shorter the time step the better the precision;
The 20Gyr model used 8 days. When the so-called precision was increased;Bob_Ham wrote:No, numerical methods can give arbitrary precision. It just depends on how small your step size is.
This happened;The time-step used in the 150m and the 15m Laskar experiments was varied from 3 days to 1.2 days.
Wonder what would happen if they made it super-precise and the step was reduced to 1 second. Would Mercury even last a year?We observed the loss of Mercury from the Solar System in both our 15m and the 150m
Laskar experiments.
Still insisting on using these models as proof?
- Bob_Ham
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
Without any proof? I did the calculation! Read the Background section of my paper.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.
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?
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
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: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.
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.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?
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.
- Bob_Ham
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm
- Contact:
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
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:The formulas were derived from observation. To then use the formula to predict the observation isn't proof. It's circular reasoning.
Again, the formula for orbital velocity isAardwolf 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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
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;Bob_Ham wrote: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.Aardwolf wrote:The formulas were derived from observation. To then use the formula to predict the observation isn't proof. It's circular reasoning.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/124071/pdfThe solution gave for the mass of Pluto 1.08 ± 0.23 times the mass of the Earth.
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.
Irrelevant again. We're discussing your misunderstanding not EM forces.Bob_Ham wrote:On the contrary, the electromagnetic force cannot explain any of the things I’ve just mentioned.
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.Bob_Ham wrote:Again, the formula for orbital velocity isAardwolf 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.
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.
And you still haven't refuted that when these formulas are actually modelled in any precise way, they don't work.
-
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
Actually, neutrons are also composed of charged quarks. Not that I support the preposterous notion of dipole gravity, mind you.Bob_Ham wrote:Neutron stars.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"
- neilwilkes
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
More impossible objects.Bob_Ham wrote:Neutron stars.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 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-n ... oton-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.
-
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 8:41 am
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
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?neilwilkes wrote:More impossible objects.Bob_Ham wrote:Neutron stars.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 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-n ... oton-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.
- neilwilkes
- Posts: 366
- Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
What a strange thought.antosarai wrote: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?neilwilkes wrote:More impossible objects.Bob_Ham wrote:Neutron stars.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 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-n ... oton-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.
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.
-
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up
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?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.
-
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 8:41 am
Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold 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?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. (...)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests