EU Breakthrough? - Gravity is Electro-Magnetic

[nick c]

Magnetic fields constitue spinning vorticies which operate on a non-electrical basis. This is
observable and fact

Dusthurricane,
You keep making this assertion without presenting any observational/experimental backing, nor do you refer to any papers or texts that support your position. Why is that? this is supposed to be a science based forum, making blanket assertions and claims without providing some kind of evidence to support your positions is not acceptable here. There is a section of these boards (NIAMI) that allows a degree of freedom for those that want to present their own ideas, hypothesis', or theories.

MAGNETIC FIELDS ARE CREATED BY ELECTRIC CURRENTS, INCLUDING PERMANENT MAGNETS

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/3 ... ode77.html

Origin of Permanent Magnetism
We now know of two distinct methods of generating a magnetic field. We can either use a permanent magnet, such as a piece of loadstone, or we can run a current around an electric circuit. Are these two methods fundamentally different, or are they somehow related to one another? Let us investigate further.
[...]
In some ferromagnetic materials, the atomic currents remain aligned after the alignment field is switched off, so the macroscopic field generated by these currents also remains. We call such materials permanent magnets.

In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).

highlight added

The above quote is from a plasma physics textbook, it is derived from observation and experimentation by researchers over the years. That is not to say that experts cannot be wrong, or that textbooks cannot be incorrect. But if this is to be challenged it must be backed with some type of evidence: either experimental or observational falsification or refutation based on logical argument.
Instead of an unsubstantiated statement, please show us how a magnetic field can exist without an electric current and how this can occur in plasma.

[dusthurricane]

Nick C,

You keep making this assertion without presenting any observational/experimental backing, nor do you refer to any papers or texts that support your position. Why is that?

Because you have not bothered to look. Arrogance in the first.

I have clearly stated on this forum to refer to Mr Howard Johnson - there you will find backup. You are still floating
around in a mystical particle universe if you are not yet aware of spintronics. Spintronics is the new electronics.
I base my understanding of magnetism on these principles - i was aware of them prior to Howard Johnsons experiments , he afforded me the facts, which the scientific world is now employing.

Nick C,
making blanket assertions and claims without providing some kind of evidence to support your positions is not acceptable here. There is a section of these boards (NIAMI) that allows a degree of freedom for those that want to present their own ideas, hypothesis', or theories.

MAGNETIC FIELDS ARE CREATED BY ELECTRIC CURRENTS, INCLUDING PERMANENT MAGNETS

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/3 ... ode77.html

Would seem to me you yourself should perhaps be using NIAMI. Does your farside reference even know of the
exsistance of spintronics???? Is it incorporated into their teachings ??

The pathetic illustration of a magnetic field tells me this guy/girl does not even understand 'iron fillings do not afford a true representation of the magnetic field because the fillings becomes mini magnets and interfere with the pattern.'

I do not need teachings sir, Spintronics only helps prove my point - you can not treat magnetism and electricity as the same phenomenon.

NICK C - LOOKS LIKE YOU NEED A RE-INSTALL.
I say again and again, until you do your 'up to date' research as a true scientist should do - don't even bother.

Goldminer,
Regarding my analogy of a solar system , you said -

Your current understanding of the shape extra-nuclear electrons of atoms needs an update IMHO. Research "electron orbits." Hint: the orbitals are not shaped like planets around the Sun.

Free electrons and protons have a monopole electric field surrounding each and a dipole magnetic field surrounding each. Consequently, at the sub atomic level, magnetic and electric properties coexist and are inseparable.

My visualization of electrons and protons is that they are a special type of standing wave, and there is no particulate entity at the center of either, just as there is no charge at the center of a hollow electrically charged sphere.

In my view your nit picking is superfluous. Please refrain. I pose a simple model / analogy so people without
an idea can better understand an atom. Yet you feel the need to 'educate me' .

You ask me to research. Why?, when i have my 'up to date' literature coming from every angle of current physics.
And just to make clear, your claim - magnetic and electric properties coexist and are inseparable
wow can they coexist - wow........ deary me

Inseperable you say. why does a magnetic vortex exsist without an electric field if they are inseperable.
Oh permenant magnets show flux because electric current creates it ??? yes, is that what your saying?
Then, please tell me at what voltage are these currents and where is that accompanying electric field?
An electric field is required for the channel of electron flow ( current ) - maybe it comes from the clouds. come on.


Going by your info. , it would seem you need the education. Please refer to the NickC thread above and learn
about spintronics then i will take you more seriously.

[nick c]

Dusthurricane,
This is a thread on the "Electric Universe" board. While we want to allow forum members as much freedom as possible, the upper two boards have a specific purpose pertaining to the Electric Universe. "The Electric Universe" and the "Electric Universe - Planetary Science" boards are for the discussion and debate of the published works of Electric Universe theorists and related material. Your posts on this thread are considered to be an attempt to hijack these threads and redirect them toward your personal view. There is no attempt on your part to debate issues raised in EU literature. The "Electric Universe" board is not a publishing house for those advocating alternative (to the EU) theories. The "I have a theory" section is provided in the "New Insights and Mad Ideas" board. Feel free to use the NIAMI board to explain your view and how it relates to, or is superior to the EU.


Your cooperation is appreciated,
Nick

[Goldminer]

Nick C,

You keep making this assertion without presenting any observational/experimental backing, nor do you refer to any papers or texts that support your position. Why is that?

Because you have not bothered to look. Arrogance in the first.

I have clearly stated on this forum to refer to Mr Howard Johnson - there you will find backup. You are still floating
around in a mystical particle universe if you are not yet aware of spintronics. Spintronics is the new electronics.
I base my understanding of magnetism on these principles - i was aware of them prior to Howard Johnsons experiments , he afforded me the facts, which the scientific world is now employing.

Nick C,
making blanket assertions and claims without providing some kind of evidence to support your positions is not acceptable here. There is a section of these boards (NIAMI) that allows a degree of freedom for those that want to present their own ideas, hypothesis', or theories.

MAGNETIC FIELDS ARE CREATED BY ELECTRIC CURRENTS, INCLUDING PERMANENT MAGNETS

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/3 ... ode77.html

Would seem to me you yourself should perhaps be using NIAMI. Does your farside reference even know of the
exsistance of spintronics???? Is it incorporated into their teachings ??

The pathetic illustration of a magnetic field tells me this guy/girl does not even understand 'iron fillings do not afford a true representation of the magnetic field because the fillings becomes mini magnets and interfere with the pattern.'

I do not need teachings sir, Spintronics only helps prove my point - you can not treat magnetism and electricity as the same phenomenon.

NICK C - LOOKS LIKE YOU NEED A RE-INSTALL.
I say again and again, until you do your 'up to date' research as a true scientist should do - don't even bother.

Goldminer,
Regarding my analogy of a solar system , you said -

Your current understanding of the shape extra-nuclear electrons of atoms needs an update IMHO. Research "electron orbits." Hint: the orbitals are not shaped like planets around the Sun.

Free electrons and protons have a monopole electric field surrounding each and a dipole magnetic field surrounding each. Consequently, at the sub atomic level, magnetic and electric properties coexist and are inseparable.

My visualization of electrons and protons is that they are a special type of standing wave, and there is no particulate entity at the center of either, just as there is no charge at the center of a hollow electrically charged sphere.

In my view your nit picking is superfluous. Please refrain. I pose a simple model / analogy so people without
an idea can better understand an atom. Yet you feel the need to 'educate me' .

You ask me to research. Why?, when i have my 'up to date' literature coming from every angle of current physics.
And just to make clear, your claim - magnetic and electric properties coexist and are inseparable
wow can they coexist - wow........ deary me

Inseperable you say. why does a magnetic vortex exsist without an electric field if they are inseperable.
Oh permenant magnets show flux because electric current creates it ??? yes, is that what your saying?
Then, please tell me at what voltage are these currents and where is that accompanying electric field?
An electric field is required for the channel of electron flow ( current ) - maybe it comes from the clouds. come on.


Going by your info. , it would seem you need the education. Please refer to the NickC thread above and learn
about spintronics then i will take you more seriously.

There are none so ignorant as the willfully ignorant! I have no care how you take me. I, at least, know how to use the shift command on my keyboard. André-Marie Ampère, after whom the unit of electrical current is named, had this all figured out back in the early 1800's.

Whenever quantum mechanics allows something to exist in two states at the same time, the universe splits," says Morton, "and you have a universe where it's one thing and a universe where it's in the other state. You can along those lines think about a quantum computer as many parallel computers running in different universes."

Dusthurricane, who thinks we think magnetism and electricity are the same phenomena: we don't; but you are impervious to any point that is brought up! You may be the son of Nereid. Link here

Quantum Mechanics "allows" something to exist in two states? Anarchy rules! Apparently you are allowed to make up whatever you wish, Dusthurricane, just don't expect me to sponsor you with advertising.

PS: Don't be surprised to find that the moderators have moved this thread to the NIAMI "New Insights and Mad Ideas"

[dusthurricane]

Goldminer - you choose to overlook my evidence after having questioned my validity. And talk of ignorance.

Nick c, please calm down, What are you intimating here -

The "Electric Universe" board is not a publishing house for those advocating alternative (to the EU) theories. The "I have a theory" section is provided in the "New Insights and Mad Ideas" board. Feel free to use the NIAMI board to explain your view and how it relates to, or is superior to the EU.

Is spintronics a alternate theory ?

I do not offer it as an alternative to an 'electric universe'. no.

I just point out a new science. whats the problem? there, i used the shift ...

Night all.

[mpc755]

Maustin,
Good questions.
You said

But, this new EM understanding of 'gravity' requires a substantially neutral environment. I'm not sure how to express that... all bodies in the system must be charge-neutral/of the same voltage/whatever the language is which describes the state of attraction and repulsion being as close to equilibrium as they ever get. Otherwise, either attraction or repulsion would entirely overwhelm the opposite force and completely dominate the motions/structures/discharges in the system.

I think the idea is that the nature of matter itself is arranged( internally at the atomic level) so that there is a small bit of attraction (gravity) available to interact with other matter. If the environment is not neutral or the bodies of matter are somehow charged beyond their natural neutral state then the electromagnetic forces start to come into play and gravity, tho still present, might be overcome. Environments need not be neutral for gravity to exist.

mpc755,
I like your explanation of the double slit experiment with the moving particle and the associated aether wave. I always have more questions when I read about those experiments.
You say gravity is displaced aether pushing back on bodies. That seems to mean(to me) something like atmospheric pressure, but not gravity. ??? Care to further explain why bodies would move toward each other?

Jack

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

Displaces aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

The aether displaced by the Earth is in a state of displacement far past the Moon. The aether displaced by the Moon is in a state of displacement far past the Moon. The aether which exists between the Earth and the Moon is pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth and the Moon and offset each other to some degree. Consider this aether to be more at rest than the aether which encompasses the Earth and the Moon. The aether which encompasses the Earth and the Moon forces the Earth and the Moon toward each other.

[mpc755]

Maustin,
Good questions.
You said

But, this new EM understanding of 'gravity' requires a substantially neutral environment. I'm not sure how to express that... all bodies in the system must be charge-neutral/of the same voltage/whatever the language is which describes the state of attraction and repulsion being as close to equilibrium as they ever get. Otherwise, either attraction or repulsion would entirely overwhelm the opposite force and completely dominate the motions/structures/discharges in the system.

I think the idea is that the nature of matter itself is arranged( internally at the atomic level) so that there is a small bit of attraction (gravity) available to interact with other matter. If the environment is not neutral or the bodies of matter are somehow charged beyond their natural neutral state then the electromagnetic forces start to come into play and gravity, tho still present, might be overcome. Environments need not be neutral for gravity to exist.

mpc755,
I like your explanation of the double slit experiment with the moving particle and the associated aether wave. I always have more questions when I read about those experiments.
You say gravity is displaced aether pushing back on bodies. That seems to mean(to me) something like atmospheric pressure, but not gravity. ??? Care to further explain why bodies would move toward each other?

Jack

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

Displaces aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

The aether displaced by the Earth is in a state of displacement far past the Moon. The aether displaced by the Moon is in a state of displacement far past the Moon. The aether which exists between the Earth and the Moon is pushing back and exerting pressure toward the Earth and the Moon and offset each other to some degree. Consider this aether to be more at rest than the aether which encompasses the Earth and the Moon. The aether which encompasses the Earth and the Moon forces the Earth and the Moon toward each other.

Correction:

The aether displaced by the Moon is in a state of displacement far past the [Earth].

The following is evidence of aether displacement.

'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/de ... yager.html

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."

It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/100 ... 1475v1.pdf

"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through the aether.

'Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System'
http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surp ... ar-system/

'“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”'

The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave. This is evidence of a moving 'particle', the solar system, having an associated aether wave.

'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubbl ... ature.html

"Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water."

The 'pond' consists of aether. The moving 'particles' are the galaxy clusters. The ripple is an aether displacement wave. The ripple is a gravitational wave. This is also evidence of a moving 'particle', the galaxy clusters, having an associated aether wave.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image '
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/ma ... _Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

Dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

'Giant black hole kicked out of home galaxy'
http://www.astronomy.com/en/News-Observ ... alaxy.aspx

"But these new data support the idea that gravitational waves — ripples in the fabric of space first predicted by Albert Einstein but never detected directly — can exert an extremely powerful force."

The fabric of space is the aether.

Gravitational waves are ripples in the aether.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.

They are both aether displacement waves.

[mpc755]

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.

They are both aether displacement waves.

<moderator edit>

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image '
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/ma ... _Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

Non-baryonic dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

I look forward to your more correct explanation.

[Michael V]

mpc755,

I look forward to your more correct explanation.

Apologies for my previous remark. You will have the correct explanation within a few weeks.

Michael

[mpc755]

mpc755,

I look forward to your more correct explanation.

Apologies for my previous remark. You will have the correct explanation within a few weeks.

Michael

You don't have to wait a few weeks. I already figured out the correct explanation.

'Dark Matter Core Defies Explanation in NASA Hubble Image '
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/ma ... _Core.html

"This technique revealed the dark matter in Abell 520 had collected into a "dark core," containing far fewer galaxies than would be expected if the dark matter and galaxies were anchored together. Most of the galaxies apparently have sailed far away from the collision. "This result is a puzzle," said astronomer James Jee of the University of California in Davis, lead author of paper about the results available online in The Astrophysical Journal. "Dark matter is not behaving as predicted, and it's not obviously clear what is going on. It is difficult to explain this Hubble observation with the current theories of galaxy formation and dark matter.""

The dark matter core does not defy explanation. The dark matter core is not a puzzle. The dark matter core is not difficult to explain. It is obviously clear what is going on.

Non-baryonic dark matter and galaxies are not anchored together.

Aether has mass. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

[mpc755]

'Empty Space is not Empty! '
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8

"Why does nothing weigh something"

'Nothing' weighs something because aether has mass.

"Most of the mass of the proton comes not from the quarks within a proton but from the empty space between the quarks"

The empty space in a proton consists of aether.

Aether has mass.

[Sparky]

mpc,

Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

"Most of the mass of the proton comes not from the quarks within a proton but from the empty space between the quarks"

The empty space in a proton consists of aether.

So, the mass of a proton, matter, is mostly aether?

What differentiates aether/matter/mass from space aether mass?

It sounds like you are saying aether moves through aether and displaces it.

Would that be like currents of air or water impinging upon themselves?

Yet there appears to be a defining line between matter and "space"...

[mpc755]

mpc,

Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

"Most of the mass of the proton comes not from the quarks within a proton but from the empty space between the quarks"

The empty space in a proton consists of aether.

So, the mass of a proton, matter, is mostly aether?

Yes. The 'particles of matter' in a proton are the quarks.

What differentiates aether/matter/mass from space aether mass?

Matter is condensations of aether.

It is not a very good analogy but ice is condensations of liquid water.

It sounds like you are saying aether moves through aether and displaces it.

Again, it is not a very good analogy but puting an ice cube into a glass of water displaces the water. Both are made of H20. Ice and liquid water are H20 in different states.

Aether and matter are different states of the same material.

Would that be like currents of air or water impinging upon themselves?

No.

Yet there appears to be a defining line between matter and "space"...

Yes. Aether and matter have mass.

Particles of matter are condensations of aether.

Particles of matter exist in and displace the aether.

The confusion is thinking a proton only exists as a particle of matter. A proton actually consists of quarks and aether.

Quarks consist of condensed aether.

The quarks are the particles of matter in a proton.

The mass of a proton is the mass of the quarks and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the quarks.

[Sparky]

Particles of matter are condensations of aether.

what process condenses aether into matter?

[mpc755]

Particles of matter are condensations of aether.

what process condenses aether into matter?

Energy/pressure.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of aether. Matter is condensations of aether.

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2."

The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists, as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.