Newton's mistake, Maxwell's misunderstanding

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Newton's mistake, Maxwell's misunderstanding

Unread postby ja7tdo » Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:39 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Catonic wrote: ...

Newton pointed out the effects of gravity, including apples falling toward earth, the moon orbiting the earth and planets orbiting the sun. Isac Newton never claimed to know what causes gravity.
Einstein 1915 tried to explain what causes gravity by adding his General theory of relativity including warped space. Einstein tried, but failed to point out what causes gravity.
The necessary knowledge about electrical charges and quark particle physics did not arrive until 1945. Now we know what causes gravity, strong force and more. http://www.dipole.se

Please explain to me the EU model of gravity, based on real physics and without blaming plasma or using Einstein like slide of hand or pseudo religion.


hi,

I am not EU gravity believer. also I do not believe in elementary particle science either.
The quark is an imaginary existence that can only be observed in the accelerator.
http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/
Let's discuss gravity more specifically.

There is 2 gravity.
The gravity of outer space is electric gravity and repulsion. Since plus and minus electric field lines are not neutralized, the sun and the planets do not collide.
This is the case of Mercury.
https://translate.google.co.jp/translat ... edit-text=

I think electromagnetic mass, the principle of EM drive, is the essence of gravity on ground.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... 7-oWf5kccg
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Newton's mistake, Maxwell's misunderstanding

Unread postby Catonic » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:50 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Catonic wrote: ...

Newton pointed out the effects of gravity, including apples falling toward earth, the moon orbiting the earth and planets orbiting the sun. Isac Newton never claimed to know what causes gravity.
Einstein 1915 tried to explain what causes gravity by adding his General theory of relativity including warped space. Einstein tried, but failed to point out what causes gravity.
The necessary knowledge about electrical charges and quark particle physics did not arrive until 1945. Now we know what causes gravity, strong force and more. http://www.dipole.se

Please explain to me the EU model of gravity, based on real physics and without blaming plasma or using Einstein like slide of hand or pseudo religion.


Bengt, the EU model of gravity cannot be explained apart from the whole theory.
One of the fundamental differences between EU theory and so called "science" is that "science" is fundamentally reductionist whereas EU theory is trying to develop a holistic understanding of science.
One of the many reasons why people give consideration to EU theory is that they are uncomfortable or even disgusted at how incompatible theories and concepts and ideas are flung around in conventional "science". No one, neither Einstein nor any of his followers nor anybody in the quantum camp nor anybody from cosmology nor anyone else has been able to bring anything approaching a unified theory or approach into existence.
On the contrary, they keep adding more and more incompatible and contradictory ideas. Matter and anti-matter, dark matter, the strong nuclear force, black holes, neutron stars etc , etc, etc. It just goes on and on , becoming more and more ridiculous and detached from empirical testing and verification.
They manufacture these concepts because their mathematical theories require them, not because empirical testing shows that such phenomena actually exist.
You are correct, Einstein whole work is a "sleight of hand", imo. The EU people are trying to gradually build up a consistent general model that integrates all the different forces and dynamics that we know of into a logical, empirically testable and tested whole but they have barely begun that task. There are only very few of them at this stage.
You approach the question of gravity in the typical conventional way, from the atomic level, but whilst that approach is normal in mainstream science it begs the issue from the EU perspective because even if your approach is totally correct you would still need to show how your approach scales to the solar/galactic/universe level and is consistent with all the forces and dynamics we know about at both the macro or general level and the micro or atomic level.
So, in answer to your question, I cannot explain the EU model of gravity based on "real physics" because what the EU people call "real physics" is fundamentally different from what conventional scientists call real physics.
EU theory is a work in progress that is still taking baby steps. Maybe it will run into massive problems and it's few followers and contributors will admit defeat and leave the field. Maybe it will grow and develop and explain many issues such as gravity and integrate them into a logically, sensible, testable whole.
At this stage, I'm far more concerned about the inability of conventional scientists to explain either Newtonian gravity or Einstein's space/time concept, given how many years they have had to do so and how many followers and resources they have had to tackle the issue.
I can only try to explain Wal Thornhill's theory of gravity in relation to the overall dynamics of how he believes the universe functions and the empirical evidence he and other EU people put up to try and justify those beliefs.
From that perspective it is clear that gravity is of very little importance in the EU model.
Which is completely different from conventional science of course.
If the basic approach of the EU model is not acceptable to you then I doubt that anything that any EU supporter is going to say to you will be of any value or use. How long it is going to take to work thru these complex issues is anyone's guess.
Catonic
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:41 am

Re: Newton's mistake, Maxwell's misunderstanding

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:52 am

ja7tdo wrote:There is 2 gravity.
The gravity of outer space is electric gravity and repulsion ... I think electromagnetic mass, the principle of EM drive, is the essence of gravity on ground.

Sorry, you only get 1 gravity, and you need to be able to explain it in detail.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Newton's mistake, Maxwell's misunderstanding

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:10 am

Catonic wrote:Bengt, the EU model of gravity cannot be explained apart from the whole theory.

And there is no whole theory.
Looking for a theory of everything in physics is as pointless as trying to find one in biology or medicine.
The complexity of the world around us is many magnitudes beyond the grasp of the human mind.
What you are looking for is religion, not science.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Newton's mistake, Maxwell's misunderstanding

Unread postby Catonic » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:37 am

ja7tdo wrote:hi, Catonic

Thank you for your comment.
How can you do that swirl?

Scientific theory needs to be assembled from fundamental phenomena. If you can make a swirl, you should explain its mechanism and explain the existing phenomenon. It is important not only to explain one phenomenon but also to investigate how many phenomena occurring in nature are related to that theory.

Natural phenomena are related to each other, there is nothing useless.


In relation to your original post in this thread, here are some concepts which may help or may make matters worse, in terms of spreading confusion. :o
Tesla stated that:
"My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest
importance. As I have searched the entire scientific
records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time
without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself
the original discoverer of this truth, which can be
expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter
other than that received from the environment.” – Nikola Tesla

Once again this indicates a vortex model of matter in which the energy of an atom is like the energy of a tornado: a localization of the energy of a larger system.

Various other quotes attributed to Tesla (of less-reliable / unknown source):

"A good example for such an interaction becomes apparent in gravitation, which should rather be named, universal compression. I think the material bodies do not gravitate between each other but it is the ether that makes one material body to press to another."

"We wrongly call this phenomenon gravitation."

"We can also feel ether's reaction when sudden acceleration or braking."

"The stars, planets and all the universe appeared from the ether when some part of it, due to certain reasons, became less dense."

https://www.quora.com/What-did-Nikola-Tesla-say-write-or-think-about-the-aether

Now, no doubt somewhat simplistically, we can say that the ether is plasma, Birkeland currents, electric currents magnetism, electro-magnetism etc in space.
EU theory says that stars and planets are formed in "pinches" or compression points in Birkeland currents. Compression in one part of space has it's counterpart in less compression or "density" in another part. Magnets have both attraction and repulsion.
Putting everything together and adding in some resonance and harmonics and some dissonance and inertia or the neutral part of a magnet between the positive and negative poles we have the potential for a complete theory.
For example, the toroidal movement of galaxies, solar systems, stars and planets relates to the toroidal movement of tornadoes, weather systems, whirlpools, magnetic lines of force, the movement of electrons etc etc etc. We can see the common patterns and how they scale.
Hence the picture by Ken Wheeler that I posted above. Looking at things correctly and truthfully and scientifically we start to see the connections, the repeating patterns, the logical consistencies, the underlying truths.
Another example, Gerald Pollack's work with EZ water. Once again, electric forces are at work, tying everything together if we are able to see enough parts of the big picture.
Once we get that basically right we can start to fill in the inevitable gaps.
Anyway, we certainly need to think for ourselves and make sure that our theories hold up (are consistent and logical) at both the micro (atomic) level and at the macro (general or universe) level.
The mistakes that others made in the past can or should act as a warning or guide to not keep making those same mistakes, for example, losing sight of the role of repulsion as you say.
This has not happened of course as the mistakes of Newtonian gravity and Einstein's space-time have not been recognized as mistakes except by a few, such as the EU people.
If we start to get the fundamentals right we can see that science is not that hard or complicated as the current hodge podge of Newtonian-Einsteinian-Quantum-Cosmological absurd mess leads us to believe.
Anyone who is making the effort to think for themselves is way ahead of those who accept such patent nonsense, imo. :)
Catonic
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:41 am

Re: Newton's mistake, Maxwell's misunderstanding

Unread postby Catonic » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:55 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Catonic wrote:Bengt, the EU model of gravity cannot be explained apart from the whole theory.

And there is no whole theory.
Looking for a theory of everything in physics is as pointless as trying to find one in biology or medicine.
The complexity of the world around us is many magnitudes beyond the grasp of the human mind.
What you are looking for is religion, not science.


You point is very valid and pertinent, but I am happy to settle for something that is internally consistent and does a "good enough" job of explaining what is commonly known as the hard sciences. That is, from atomic level physics thru to the operation of matter and energy at the galactic level, chemistry and biology, including evolution.If you expect "too much" then yes, you would be venturing into religion but imo, we do not need to push things to such a level.
I am happy to admit that some issues are outside our current capacity to deal with from a scientific perspective eg. how did the universe start. But we can still develop a good, worthwhile theory backed up by hard empirical testing wihin those limitations, imo anyway. :)
Catonic
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:41 am

Re: Newton's mistake, Maxwell's misunderstanding

Unread postby MotionTheory » Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:37 am

Catonic, Excellent prev posts!

Inline bold face quoted texts: Indeed, it is reasonable to expect a model/theory to covers all that and making sense for average people as well. Science for 80+%, not elite 5% of population.

This theory must be coherent and congruent, otherwise 'make sense' clause will fail. This theory must be understandable; predictable and repeatable. It does not contained nonsensical reasoning such as quantum; relativistic; virtual; theologies/magics/philosophies.

^ can't be achieve with gumbo of different kind of forces and mix-matches(contradictory) of attract&repel force directions.

ToE is a flawed concept based on current thinking about physics. This theory should be about object sustain structure; energy and motion state and object interactions according to spatial configurations.

Catonic wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote:
Catonic wrote:Bengt, the EU model of gravity cannot be explained apart from the whole theory.

And there is no whole theory.
Looking for a theory of everything in physics is as pointless as trying to find one in biology or medicine.
The complexity of the world around us is many magnitudes beyond the grasp of the human mind.
What you are looking for is religion, not science.


You point is very valid and pertinent, but I am happy to settle for something that is internally consistent and does a "good enough" job of explaining what is commonly known as the hard sciences. That is, from atomic level physics thru to the operation of matter and energy at the galactic level, chemistry and biology, including evolution.If you expect "too much" then yes, you would be venturing into religion but imo, we do not need to push things to such a level.
I am happy to admit that some issues are outside our current capacity to deal with from a scientific perspective eg. how did the universe start. But we can still develop a good, worthwhile theory backed up by hard empirical testing wihin those limitations, imo anyway. :)
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron