Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8781 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2017 6:47 PM
361 online now:
Faith, GDR, Porosity (3 members, 358 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,572 Year: 21,178/21,208 Month: 1,611/2,326 Week: 66/881 Day: 66/119 Hour: 2/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
2324
...
27Next
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 316 of 404 (698678)
05-08-2013 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 7:17 PM


Why? That only occurs in Big Bang theory When Black Holes compress all matter into 0 volume, a blank check to explain anything they can't explain, not to mention forbidden by that very theory. Especially when gravity is a field interpretation.

It is a thought experiment intended to demonstrate a point. And there is no division by zero involved in the thought experiment because we are not discussing the forces on the particles of the charges, but only the field generated by the charges at a distance from the separated charges.

Yet we measure charges every day, we have 100 years of laboratory work measuring charges that apparently don't understand that theory.

Charges behave exactly as I have described. Incidentally, I haven't described how to measure charge, but how to measure the fields associated with the charge. Apparently you've missed the point and I am not going to bother with this further.

But yet relativity says that the electromagnetic force can be observed both as just an electric force, and as an electric and magnetic force, depending on ones frame of reference.

That's right. I've picked a frame and described events from that frame. I don't have any problem with you picking a frame of reference from which we can describe magnetic effects or combination electrical magnetic effects. What we are looking for is a circumstance under which the resulting force behaves as does gravity. That stuff simply does not happen.

Much of the rest of the stuff you discuss seems to be correct, but is entirely pointless. None of it explains how a separated positive or negative charge would affect a body having no net charge located at distances that are large compared to the separation distance between the charges.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 7:17 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 8:20 PM NoNukes has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 317 of 404 (698681)
05-08-2013 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 5:29 PM


You still haven't explained to me why i should use 1/r^3 instead of 1/r^2? Especially when you want to use the electrostatic law?

Because the net field from a dipole is the sum of the fields from the two charges. Yes it is true that the electrostatic force for each charge falls off as 1/r^2, but the net force from two opposite charges falls off at 1/R^3. You can find the details in any physics book covering the topic.

I would get the wrong answer, perhaps you should try with the correct formula.

You can use any method you choose, so why must you get the wrong answer? And more importantly, why is the correct answer not zero?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 5:29 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 318 of 404 (698682)
05-08-2013 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 5:37 PM


Re: Still not supportive of your point...
I didn't write it, got a source you prefer?

Yes, you did.

I'm suppose to provide a source for your nonsense. Please. You tell me where I can find in wiki that "moving charges" are a force. Then show me that color is a type of charge that generates an electrical or magnetic force when moving.

And I think Einstein would disagree, since mass and energy are idistinguishable from one another.

That's not quite what Einstein said. But matter/energy equivalence is not inconsistent with anything I've posted.

Just like when he said Black Holes could not be a physical reality. You ignored him because you WANT there to be black holes.

I don't have any requirement that there be black holes, but I do know that Einstein's theory of GR predicts them, and that there is evidence of matter concentrations that would lead to black holes according to GR. Einstein died in 1955 at a time when there was no evidence for black holes. That's simply not the case anymore. I'll also note that Einstein initially believed in a static universe, but was quite receptive to the evidence that he was wrong.

You are just throwing around Einstein's name as if mere name dropping proves anything. Try to tie something I've said to something contrary to the theory of relativity by showing a contrary prediction from Einstein's theory. Then you'll give me something to respond to.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 5:37 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 668 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 319 of 404 (698684)
05-08-2013 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 7:27 PM


quote:
It is a thought experiment intended to demonstrate a point. And there is no division by zero involved in the thought experiment because we are not discussing the forces on the particles of the charges, but only the field generated by the charges at a distance from the separated charges.

the point of a thought experiment that is impossible is that it serves no point at all, it's impossible. There is no need to even consider it in the equation, it affects the outcome not at all, which only serves to prove their MUST ALWAYS be an electric charge, since no electric charge at all is impossible. That's what that thought experiment really says.

You have not explained anything about how charges behave, that is why you have no explanation for the galactic rotation curves. Because only when plasma is condensed into solids, liquids and gasses, and its atoms are more in alignment than when charges are separated, does the effect you call gravity begin to dominate. In the vast reaches of galactic space the accumulated non-plasma matter is too thin, too sparsely populated, and the electric and magnetic aspect dominates, not the just the aspect you call gravity.

This is why plasma does not behave like any other form of matter. A fact I know you know well, you have shown you are not stupid, which is surprising that you can then ignore 99% of the universe??? That I DO NOT understand at all? Nor can I even begin to comprehend how you can even suggest to me that the sun is a nuclear furnace, when it is plasma, and you know how plasma behaves, electrically. But the sun has a high enough concentration of plasma in one spot due to the z-pinch that the alignment you seek occurs. And as you said, the electric force is both attractive and repulsive, and with a few exceptions of things knocked out of orbit, the planets seem to never want to get too close or too far away, even though they both accelerate and decelerate in their orbits. If relativity was totally correct galactic rotation profiles would obey it, not just the electrical force.

So yes, relativity is close enough when one works in the moderately condensed matter of the solar system, but the minute you step outside dense concentrations of matter it fails. Not one single galaxy in the entire universe behaves as it was predicted it should, because as you noted, the dipole movement is not always symmetrical, especially when not bounded by other dipole moments. This is why plasma is filamentary in aspect, until enough mass is collected to form more aligned dipole movements and the ball begins to form, not the filament.

I know you are not going to try to say space is not highly filamentary outside the bounds of the solar system, and even large concentrations of plasma within the solar system remain partially filamentary, look at the sun, lightning.

So the real question is how can they ignore the electrical force as if it doesn't exist, when that is exactly what makes plasma a plasma.

And by the way, the electrical force is an inverse square law despite your claims to the contrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

quote:
Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, as do the effects of electric, magnetic, light, sound, and radiation phenomena.
All EM in nature but sound. And since that is a vibrational aspect of molecules (bound only by electric theory) one wonders how much we really don't know about a lot of things. but E=mc^2. Everything that has mass has energy, yet accelleration increases the affect of mass, without increasing the actual mass, because it adds energy to the system.....
This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 7:27 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 8:40 PM justatruthseeker has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 320 of 404 (698688)
05-08-2013 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 8:20 PM


Because only when plasma is condensed into solids, liquids and gasses, and its atoms are more in alignment than when charges are separated, does the effect you call gravity begin to dominate.

So not like in the sun? The effect of sun's gravity on planetary motion is negligible?

Nor can I even begin to comprehend how you can even suggest to me that the sun is a nuclear furnace.

Yes, you are likely right. You are probably not reachable by me.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 8:20 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 9:03 PM NoNukes has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 668 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 321 of 404 (698690)
05-08-2013 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 8:40 PM


Every theory about the sun has been proved incorrect, you have no working theoretical model of the sun or the solar system, on what theory do you claim the sun is as you say it is?
Measured convection is 1% of that required by theory. Granted, it is a preliminary experiment, and yes, I expect the results to be refined, maybe to 5% or maybe to .5%, but we both know its not off by 99 orders of magnitude.
Your theory forbids the sun to be as round as it has been measured to be, another falsification.
Do you want to discuss neutrino counts? the LSND, SNO or MiniBooNE data? Either or all is fine with me.
Why is there even a corona if its just a nuclear furnace? The photosphere?
How about the solar wind that continues to accelerate out past the orbit of Jupiter, and then stops abruptly at the heliopause? Not quite wanting to behave like your fluid dynamics predicts. Perhaps because it doesn't obey the laws of fluid dynamics because its plasma?

Likewise I have no problem separating the gravitational and electrical properties, its not required they be the same force, just because they are both inverse square laws and the math describing each is identical, with charge and mass being interchangeable between them. See "Parallels between electrostatic and gravitational fields"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field

Nor the tiny itty-bitty fact that all relativity is seated in the electrodynamic formulas, upon which it is based. But all those problems are resolved if you just put the electro back into electromagnetism and let plasma be plasma.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 8:40 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 9:19 PM justatruthseeker has responded
 Message 326 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 11:35 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 322 of 404 (698691)
05-08-2013 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 9:03 PM


I wonder what you think "order of magnitude" means ... ?

But you were lecturing us about science, do go on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 9:03 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 9:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 668 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 323 of 404 (698692)
05-08-2013 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Dr Adequate
05-08-2013 9:19 PM


Let's do discuss it, there is my theory, where's yours?

http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 9:19 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 9:51 PM justatruthseeker has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 324 of 404 (698695)
05-08-2013 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 9:39 PM


That is not a theory.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 9:39 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 10:25 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 668 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 325 of 404 (698696)
05-08-2013 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Dr Adequate
05-08-2013 9:51 PM


Says who, you? Other people that can't predict anything right by their own theory? I'll stand by observation and laboratory experiment any day over fairy dust to explain things, especially when every new discovery since the space age has backed that model, not mainstreams.

But I apologize, you are correct. it isn't a theory, it's a paradigm.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paradigm

But still in the early stage, since our evidence comes only when you are surprised because you weren't looking for it, Which is every story published since the 80's, so couldn't avoid finding it. Still more correct than yours and you call yours a theory.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 9:51 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2013 2:43 AM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 326 of 404 (698700)
05-08-2013 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 9:03 PM


Likewise I have no problem separating the gravitational and electrical properties, its not required they be the same force, just because they are both inverse square laws and the math describing each is identical,

The mathematics related to gravity and coulomb forces is not identical in form. Gravitational forces are fictitious and obey the equivalence principal leading to gravity being explained by general relativity and to all of the distinctions between Newtonian physics and general relativity. Also as best we know there is no anti-gravity matter that generates repulsion.

For coulomb forces, no general relativity, and we cannot avoid positive and negative charges from most scenarios. All of these things providing different math/physics from gravity.

Why is there even a corona if its just a nuclear furnace?

What do you mean by "just".

Not every function associated with the sun is related to whether or not the source of energy in the sun is nuclear. Yes there are other forces at work in the sun other than energy release by nuclear fusion. No one denies that. Nuclear fusion does not explain why people believe in big foot either or why the earth is round either. Neither are reasons to give up nuclear fusion is the source of solar energy.

Your theory forbids the sun to be as round as it has been measured to be, another falsification.

Show your work, bro.

How about the solar wind that continues to accelerate out past the orbit of Jupiter, and then stops abruptly at the heliopause? Not quite wanting to behave like your fluid dynamics predicts. Perhaps because it doesn't obey the laws of fluid dynamics because its plasma?

The solar wind extends into interstellar space and it does not terminate abruptly. What effect are you describing that is not how I expect it?

Measured convection is 1% of that required by theory. Granted, it is a preliminary experiment, and yes, I expect the results to be refined, maybe to 5% or maybe to .5%, but we both know its not off by 99 orders of magnitude.

Do you understand what orders of magnitude mean? Hint 1% is only 2 orders of magnitude below 100%.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 9:03 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 327 of 404 (698703)
05-09-2013 12:06 AM


Plasma cosmology... Fraud or fake?
Apparently this stuff is quite popular in some circles. Here is an article describing some of the details of both the cosmology and its proponents.

http://scientopia.org/...ow-i-know-plasma-cosmology-is-wrong

quote:
I'm going to try to take down plasma cosmology on two points. The first is a general point, the second is a specific point. As far as I can tell, plasma cosmology is motivated by people who just want to be different, or by people who have aesthetic or conceptual problems with things such as dark matter and cosmological distances.

quote:
Magnetic fields are responsible for initially collimating jets in active galactic nuclei that are observed shooting out over hundreds of thousands of light-years. So, the assertion you sometimes see that astronomers don't train their grad students about electromagnetic forces and that astronomers don't take into account those forces is an assertion that's wildly wrong. However, plasma cosmology also asserts that electromagnetic forces between plasma flowing through the solar system and through the Universe and the magnetic fields of objects (or even the objects themselves, as they'll often decide, for instance, that comets must have a substantial electric charge) make significant contributions to the motion of objects that mainstream astronomy is able to explain entirely through gravity

You can find articles about this stuff on Rational Wiki and other places. I'm not going to continue trying to debunk this stuff. I already feel not unlike a troll victim, and it's my own fault for not resisting my impulse to post.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Panda, posted 05-09-2013 5:13 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 332 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 9:22 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 328 of 404 (698718)
05-09-2013 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 10:25 PM


Says who, you?

Yeah. 'Cos it's not a theory. It's vacuous hand-waving.

But I apologize, you are correct. it isn't a theory, it's a paradigm.

"Paradigm" is what cranks call their half-baked ideas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 10:25 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1211 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 329 of 404 (698726)
05-09-2013 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by NoNukes
05-09-2013 12:06 AM


Re: Plasma cosmology... Fraud or fake?
He relies on gish gallops and red herrings.
Simply find a single statement he has made and repeatedly ask him to defend it.
If, after several attempts to change the subject, he realises you aren't following him down the 'rabbit hole', he stops replying.

It is not a successful discussion per se, but it does show he has nothing to support his claims - and it helps address any feelings of being trolled when he simply shuts up and runs away.

Pick on something simple - like his "99 orders of magnitude" claim: keep asking him to explain how he could make such a basic error.
He will eventually go off in a sulk.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by NoNukes, posted 05-09-2013 12:06 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by NoNukes, posted 05-09-2013 5:49 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 330 of 404 (698730)
05-09-2013 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Panda
05-09-2013 5:13 AM


Re: Plasma cosmology... Fraud or fake?
He relies on gish gallops and red herrings.

Yes, but neither tactic is very effective in a written debate.
In order to be an effective defender of crank science, you have to know the real science quite well. You cannot admit to not knowing about something like how to compute the electric field of a dipole simply because it is not on the crank script.

And the crank script covers just the parts of real science that allow an 'in' for the pseudo science and then all of the crank science. It's not always easy to chew on those aspects, but it's doable if the crank science is attempting to re-explain something already well explained conventionally.

And, I've said I'm quitting enough times that it's hurting my own credibility to continue. In doing some background reading on this stuff it seems that it can be really difficult to discourage plasma cosmologists and this guy fits the profile to a tee.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Panda, posted 05-09-2013 5:13 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
2021
22
2324
...
27Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017