Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
37 online now:
Faith, GDR, PaulK (3 members, 34 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,981 Year: 19,017/19,786 Month: 1,437/1,705 Week: 243/446 Day: 41/98 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The cosmic conspiracy.
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 46 of 173 (699752)
05-24-2013 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by New Cat's Eye
05-09-2013 10:02 AM


quote:
Its the effect you see from the bending of spacetime by some mass.
Don't even attempt that flat out false belief of geometric spacetime. Spacetime, composed of nothing, but bent by mass and then nothing tells mass how to move. Another theory of nothing, getting tired of nothing theories.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...0708_more_lies_from_ligo.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/..._au08/022708_neverending.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...08/021608_dark_inertia_1.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...08/022408_dark_inertia_2.htm

So, let's test your theory. We imagine a ball placed in the center of a flexible rubber sheet. We place a large ball in the center, it depresses the sheet (which is made of something by-the-way), so far so good. We now set a stationary ball at the top of the indent. What happens?
In theory where gravity is only a bending of spacetime and not a force, the ball moves nowhere.
Yet we observe in real life an attraction. The ball would never roll down the hill without the preconceived notion of a force beneath the sheet pulling it downwards. Since the bending of spacetime is in a 3D space, all lines being bent equally in all directions there is no reason for the ball to begin movement in the first place. An intellectual exercise, but not consistent with real life. In real life the ball is acted upon by a force and begins to move from its stationary position. Since gravity in a geometrical interpretation of space is not a force, it cannot act upon the ball, there must be a preexisting force to make it move.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-09-2013 10:02 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2013 6:56 PM justatruthseeker has responded
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-28-2013 11:18 AM justatruthseeker has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 173 (699756)
05-24-2013 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by justatruthseeker
05-24-2013 6:03 PM


So, let's test your theory. We imagine a ball placed in the center of a flexible rubber sheet. We place a large ball in the center, it depresses the sheet (which is made of something by-the-way), so far so good. We now set a stationary ball at the top of the indent. What happens?
In theory where gravity is only a bending of spacetime and not a force, the ball moves nowhere.

The problem with your thought experiment is the limitations of a flexible sheet. The flex sheet does not include a time component and distorting the sheet only produces a distortion of the spatial coordinate system.

By contrast distorting space-time can produce a trajectory that mimics completely a change that not only mimics the force of gravity as described by Newton's gravity in low velocity/low speed situation, but that also predicts deviations from results predicted by Newtonian law of gravitation that are then shown to match what we actually observe.

Yes, I understand your antipathy regarding General Relativity, but your proposed debunking is pure nonsense. We know exactly what motions are actually predicted by Einstein's equations and they aren't the same as that from stretching a plastic sheet. The plastic sheet was meant to be an analogy and not a mathematically rigorous experiment.

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 46 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-24-2013 6:03 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-24-2013 10:22 PM NoNukes has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 48 of 173 (699761)
05-24-2013 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by NoNukes
05-24-2013 6:56 PM


quote:
By contrast distorting space-time can produce a trajectory that mimics completely a change that not only mimics the force of gravity as described by Newton's gravity in low velocity/low speed situation, but that also predicts deviations from results predicted by Newtonian law of gravitation that are then shown to match what we actually observe.

You know better than that, I said nothing about low velocity/low speed, I said stationary. Quit trying to misdirect, that is all you have, misdirection. A stationary ball would have no reason to begin to move in the first place, if no force is acting upon it.
For every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. For the ball to begin moving, there must be a force acting upon it. I didn't say Relativity didn't give close enough answers for things already moving, but it can never explain how things begin moving in the first place. There is no cause for its effect. It violates everything known. This is why the geometrical interpretation is nothing more than an intellectual exercise. I am not against Relativity at all, you got me confused with someone else, I completely believe in E=mc^2, just not your attempts to twist what that actually means. It was "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" not the force free movement of bodies. Why do you think you need so much Fairy Dust to explain galactic rotation curves? You need to go look up what the Lorentz Force is, what every transform in Relativity is actually about.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node72.html
maybe then you wont need to keep misdirecting people because you just might learn something. Maybe then we can get rid of all that fairy dust, 96% of the universe according to you all, lol. But what is to be expected when you ignore 99% of the universe, one can't expect anything else I guess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by NoNukes, posted 05-24-2013 6:56 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 12:14 AM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 173 (699764)
05-25-2013 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by justatruthseeker
05-24-2013 10:22 PM


I know it's a wasted effort.
You know better than that, I said nothing about low velocity/low speed, I said stationary. Quit trying to misdirect, that is all you have, misdirection. A stationary ball would have no reason to begin to move in the first place, if no force is acting upon it.

You are absolutely clueless regarding General Relativity.

I did not provide a misdirection. A 'stationary' object is included in the domain of low velocity, low gravitational fields, which is the realm in which Einstein's equations predict exactly the same trajectories as does Newton's universal law of gravitation. The agreement in results is despite the fact that Newton's law that gravity in an attractive force similar in nature to the coulombic force while in General Relativity gravity is a fictitious or apparent force.

In short, both General Relativity and Newton give the same result for the stationary object in your thought experiment. Arguing that a 'plastic sheet' does not give the same result is a completely nonsensical argument.

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 48 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-24-2013 10:22 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Panda, posted 05-25-2013 8:13 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 50 of 173 (699769)
05-25-2013 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by NoNukes
05-25-2013 12:14 AM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
NN writes:

Arguing that a 'plastic sheet' does not give the same result is a completely nonsensical argument.


I thinks he believes General Relatively is wrong because space is not made of rubber.

"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 49 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 12:14 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 12:07 PM Panda has not yet responded
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 12:17 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 51 of 173 (699775)
05-25-2013 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Panda
05-25-2013 8:13 AM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
Oh on the contrary I believe Relativity is correct, I just believe you don't know what Relativity actually is. The paper that Einstein submitted was titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Not stationary, not force free, but "Electrodynamics." That you now exclude such forces in all your attempts to explain the universe is not Einstein's fault at all. Even Lorentz tried to tell you what it was all about, why the Lorentz force has no application but that of the electrodynamic interaction between bodies, the same transforms used in Relativity. What Maxwell tried to tell you upon which all of Relativity rests. What Ampere, Gauss and Weber tried to tell you.

But then what can one expect from people that tell you 99% of the universe is plasma, and then ignore that in every single attempt to explain the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29

quote:
The presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. Plasma, therefore, has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids, or gases and is considered a distinct state of matter.

So, why are you still trying to explain things in space of which 99% is plasma, by using the interaction of non-plasma matter? All Relativity does is explain the solar system, the planets composed almost entirely of non-plasma (solid, liquids, gasses). Outside the solar system where almost everything is plasma, it fails. Hence galactic rotation curves require you to put 96% of imaginary fairy dust called dark matter and energy and then a black hole or maybe even a binary one in the center of the galaxy just to get the numbers to fudge correctly?
Its quite funny how the plasma experts in nuclear physics who are attempting to use plasma in a z-pinch to compress it to sustain nuclear fusion know plasma obeys the electrodynamic laws, but astrophysicists still ignore it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch

quote:
The Z-pinch is an application of the Lorentz force, in which a current-carrying conductor in a magnetic field experiences a force. One example of the Lorentz force is that, if two parallel wires are carrying current in the same direction, the wires will be pulled toward each other. In a Z-pinch machine the wires are replaced by a plasma, which can be thought of as many current-carrying wires. When a current is run through the plasma, the particles in plasma are pulled toward each other by the Lorentz force, thus the plasma contracts. The contraction is counteracted by the increasing gas pressure of the plasma.

Learn your physics. There is not one thing that does not depend on the electromagnetic force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

quote:
The word electromagnetism is a compound form of two Greek terms, ἢλεκτρον, ēlektron, "amber", and μαγνήτης, magnētēs, "magnet". The science of electromagnetic phenomena is defined in terms of the electromagnetic force, sometimes called the Lorentz force, which includes both electricity and magnetism as elements of one phenomenon.

The electromagnetic force is the interaction responsible for almost all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity. Ordinary matter takes its form as a result of intermolecular forces between individual molecules in matter. Electrons are bound by electromagnetic wave mechanics into orbitals around atomic nuclei to form atoms, which are the building blocks of molecules. This governs the processes involved in chemistry, which arise from interactions between the electrons of neighboring atoms, which are in turn determined by the interaction between electromagnetic force and the momentum of the electrons.


And since we do not yet know what gravity is, but we do know the electromagnetic force both attracts and repels, and is responsible for every other interaction, it is quite reasonable to assume gravity is another aspect of the electromagnetic force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

quote:
Gravitation, or gravity, is the natural phenomenon by which physical bodies attract each other with a force proportional to their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them...The simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an accurate approximation for most physical situations including calculations as critical as spacecraft trajectory.

So Relativity isn't really needed, unless you try to transform the electrodynamic properties of moving bodies into frames separated by time and distance. That you then decide to ignore the basics upon which Relativity rests in your attempt to ignore those electrodynamic interactions, can't be blamed on Einstein, nor does his theory support such interpretation, being that all his formulas rest upon the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Stationary bodies react quite differently, because stationary charges contain no magnetic fields.

Hence in reality Einstein showed that gravity is nothing more than an electrodynamic interaction of moving bodies, where the electric and magnetic fields balance. Yet you exclude this in every discussion about relativity, as if the entire theory was not based upon that very electrodynamic interaction.

But its ok, someday astrophysicists may actually listen to the plasma experts about how plasma behaves, and stop using fairy dust in their explanations. Maybe if they actually took a course in plasma physics or electrodynamic theory (since 99% of the universe is plasma and electrodynamics is the basis of Relativity) they might actually have something useful to say. But you go right ahead and keep trying to explain the universe as being composed of 96% fairy dust and ignore those electrodynamic forces. You are stuck 100 years in the past. Technology has shown how incorrect you are, that electrodynamic forces permeate the universe, of which light, the defining aspect of Relativity is but a part. Light belongs to the electrodynamic spectrum, from gamma rays to x-rays and visible in between. Relativity is based upon the speed of light, an electrodynamic property.
http://www.space.com/...er-spacecraft-solar-system-edge.html

quote:
"This region was not anticipated, was not predicted."

http://www.nbcnews.com/...ystem/%23.UZqEVZzgyF8#.UaDhY5zgyF8
quote:
All theoretical models have been found wanting."

But some people did predict just that and their theoretical models predicted it. Why are not their models included?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...onfirms-electric-heliosphere

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Panda, posted 05-25-2013 8:13 AM Panda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 1:17 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 173 (699777)
05-25-2013 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Panda
05-25-2013 8:13 AM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
I thinks he believes General Relatively is wrong because space is not made of rubber.

I agree.

I did see in his post the idea that space-time is not a real thing that can be warped. I decided to pick at the low hanging fruit instead. The man denigrates general relativity while knowing absolutely nothing about the theory.

Being ignorant about GR is no real mark on a person; the math is beyond the simple algebra needed to work with special relativity. In fact few people who aren't studying physics and some few branches of engineering have any reason to bother with tensor calculus.

Justa is getting both hi physics and his faux physics from crank sites and crank videos. Lately he's been putting up links to a single one of his favorite crank pages.


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 50 by Panda, posted 05-25-2013 8:13 AM Panda has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 1:15 PM NoNukes has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 53 of 173 (699785)
05-25-2013 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by NoNukes
05-25-2013 12:17 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
Apparently you didnt read anything. Told you from the start Relativity is correct, it's your interpretation of it that is flawed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity

quote:
For example, in the framework of special relativity the Maxwell equations have the same form in all inertial frames of reference. In the framework of general relativity the Maxwell equations or the Einstein field equations have the same form in arbitrary frames of reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

quote:
The term "Maxwell's equations" is often used for other forms of Maxwell's equations. For example, space-time formulations are commonly used in high energy and gravitational physics. These formulations defined on space-time, rather than space and time separately are manifestly[note 1] compatible with special and general relativity. In quantum mechanics, versions of Maxwell's equations based on the electric and magnetic potentials are preferred.

Even thermodynamics relies on them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell_relations

quote:
Maxwell's relations are a set of equations in thermodynamics which are derivable from the definitions of the thermodynamic potentials.

Everything is electrodynamic interactions. E-mc^2

Get your physics right and you can stop practicing pseudoscience. You wont need black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy. You wont need all that Fairie Dust [Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/...ccessfully_finds_nothing.htm

http://www.thunderbolts.info/...ves/davesmith_au08/liars.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...smith_au08/011008_liars2.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...vesmith_au08/090822_ligo.htm

This is you
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...u08/101022_pseudoskeptic.htm

At least I give references, NEVER seen a single reference from any of you backing up anything you claim it says. You say it says this and that, but lack any references to back you claims, so in reality it is just your opinion against what science actually says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 12:17 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 1:46 PM justatruthseeker has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 173 (699786)
05-25-2013 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by justatruthseeker
05-25-2013 12:07 PM


Re: Silly equivocation on the term Relativity...
Oh on the contrary I believe Relativity is correct, I just believe you don't know what Relativity actually is. The paper that Einstein submitted was titled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Not stationary, not force free, but "Electrodynamics."

The paper you reference would be Einstein's 1905 paper on Special Relativity. Neither the paper of its title would be directly relevant to general relativity which is Einstein's theory of gravity. Your continued confusion of special relativity and general relativity is of course, part of your charm.

Of course this would not be the only bit on non-linear thinking in your large post.

quote:
The electromagnetic force is the interaction responsible for almost all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity.

justa writes:

And since we do not yet know what gravity is, but we do know the electromagnetic force both attracts and repels, and is responsible for every other interaction, it is quite reasonable to assume gravity is another aspect of the electromagnetic force

No justaseeker. It is not logical to assume that gravity is just another aspect of the electromagnetic force if we don't know what gravity is. But nice work citing a source which says the exact opposite of what you are trying to demonstrate!

quote:
Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an accurate approximation for most physical situations including calculations as critical as spacecraft trajectory.

justatruthseeker writes:

So Relativity isn't really needed, unless you try to transform the electrodynamic properties of moving bodies into frames separated by time and distance.

No justatruthseeker. First of all you are giving a special relativity answer to a general relativity question. Accordingly your attempt to describe the useful areas of application for general relativity are completely wrong.

Second, the paragraph you quote tell us that Newton's law of gravitation is an approximation. The approximation is known to be inaccurate for predicting the orbit of Mercury and Venus over long periods of time and for predicting the orbit of some binary star systems over short periods of time. General relativity however does predict those things quite nicely.

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 51 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 12:07 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 173 (699791)
05-25-2013 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by justatruthseeker
05-25-2013 1:15 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
justaseekeroftruth writes:


Everything is electrodynamic interactions. E-mc^2

None of the reference you cite suggest that gravity is an eletromagntetic force.

At least I give references, NEVER seen a single reference from any of you backing up anything you claim it says. You say it says this and that, but lack any references to back you claims, so in reality it is just your opinion against what science actually says.

First of all, I do provide references when I feel it is necessary to do so. I'll admit that I do not cite references for the contention that F=mA or the fact that General Relativity and not Special Relativity is Einstein's theory of gravitation.

I'll also note that you don't ever seem to challenge anything I say about what science actually says, which would indeed result in additional citing references for what I say.

For the record, here are a couple of my past messages in response to your posts that include references. Message 392, Message 305. I note that despite claiming to have never seen me cite a reference that you responded to the second message.

Second of all science does not say what your crank sites say it says. I don't really care how many times you quote www.thunderbolts.

Finally, it is true that for the most part, I find the material I need in the references you provide. That is because your use of those references consists primarily of your misreading material and then posting it as if it actually supports your claims. When I quote that material back at you, I am doing at least as good a job of citing references as you are.


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 53 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 1:15 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 2:52 PM NoNukes has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 56 of 173 (699795)
05-25-2013 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NoNukes
05-25-2013 1:46 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
And yet every source cited shows all of Relativity and Thermodynamics to be seated in the Electrodynamic force, you then ignore it in every explanation. Just why is it that galactic rotation curves don't match any theory of gravity??? Not Newton's, not Relativity.

Could it possibly be because galaxies do not obey those laws, but instead obey the electromagnetic force laws which are 10^39 powers stronger than the gravitational force? If you included that stronger force in your calculations, you would not need Fairie Dust to explain galactic rotations. Since 99% of the universe is plasma, not bound in close proximity as in our solar system, one might think you would be inclined to do some research on just what plasma is. But apparently you prefer to ignore 99% of the universe so you can continue to postulate imaginary entities to be the cause. Then want me to believe that even though you ignore 99% of the universe, you can explain it. Apparently you can't, else we would not need 96% of Fairie Dust with a black hole or two thrown in for good measure to explain that 99% you just ignored.

Next you will want me to explain what diamonds are without using carbon in the answer. Any answer given completely and utterly worthless. Yet you do the same thing in astrophysics, You ignore 99% of the universe, and then attempt to tell me what it is. Time after time you have been proved wrong. Time after time you find not what you seek, but electric currents and mysteries. Mysteries only because you ignore what 99% of the universe actually is.

Here, try to learn something of what you speak before you do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn_HqbMmn-4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTGbXN4qm_I&list=UUvHqXK_H...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02Agr63aMWE&list=UUvHqXK_H...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTS0Vv3yS6U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia3_VsEAvk8&list=UUvHqXK_H...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98GdebTOIak&list=UUvHqXK_H...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8shxpZJ30Q&list=UUvHqXK_H...

Time we started using real science again instead of Fairie Dust.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 1:46 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 4:47 PM justatruthseeker has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 173 (699804)
05-25-2013 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by justatruthseeker
05-25-2013 2:52 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
And yet every source cited shows all of Relativity and Thermodynamics to be seated in the Electrodynamic force

I've already pointed out that none of your references cite an electrical or electromagnetic origin for gravity. For that you are forced to revert to double talk and denying what your own references actual present.

Then want me to believe that even though you ignore 99% of the universe, you can explain it.

I cannot explain everything.

For now I am satisfied with pointing out that your post on the subject of General Relativity was pure bullocks. I think I have a shot at convincing even you of that. I do agree that I have no shot of convincing you to take a more critical look at this plasma/electric universe stuff, let alone to dismiss any of it. So I won't even try to do that.


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 56 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 2:52 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 6:01 PM NoNukes has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 58 of 173 (699810)
05-25-2013 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by NoNukes
05-25-2013 4:47 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
quote:
I've already pointed out that none of your references cite an electrical or electromagnetic origin for gravity. For that you are forced to revert to double talk and denying what your own references actual present.

Well here, let me post them again since you didn't read them the first time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

quote:
The term "Maxwell's equations" is often used for other forms of Maxwell's equations. For example, space-time formulations are commonly used in high energy and gravitational physics. These formulations defined on space-time, rather than space and time separately are manifestly[note 1] compatible with special and general relativity. In quantum mechanics, versions of Maxwell's equations based on the electric and magnetic potentials are preferred.

So you want to use electromagnetic formulas to postulate your ideas of what gravity is, even though you admit you don't know what it is, and then exclude any possibility that gravity is electromagnetic???????? Ok, fine, then why are you using the electromagnetic formulas to do it????? Let's talk about Double-talk, shall we?

And let's not forget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations

quote:
The Einstein field equations (EFE) or Einstein's equations are a set of 10 equations in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity which describe the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by matter and energy. First published by Einstein in 1915 as a tensor equation, the EFE equate local spacetime curvature (expressed by the Einstein tensor) with the local energy and momentum within that spacetime (expressed by the stress–energy tensor).

Similar to the way that electromagnetic fields are determined using charges and currents via Maxwell's equations,....Maxwell's equations are partial differential equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to each other and to the electric charges and currents. Often, the charges and currents are themselves dependent on the electric and magnetic fields via the Lorentz force equation and the constitutive relations. These all form a set of coupled partial differential equations, which are often very difficult to solve. In fact, the solutions of these equations encompass all the diverse phenomena in the entire field of classical electromagnetism. A thorough discussion is far beyond the scope of the article, but some general notes follow.


...
quote:
Exact solutions for the EFE can only be found under simplifying assumptions such as symmetry. Special classes of exact solutions are most often studied as they model many gravitational phenomena, such as rotating black holes and the expanding universe. Further simplification is achieved in approximating the actual spacetime as flat spacetime with a small deviation, leading to the linearised EFE. These equations are used to study phenomena such as gravitational waves.

so back to Fairie Dust we go....Aren't you tired of looking for nothing yet?

Edited by justatruthseeker, : new link

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 4:47 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 7:58 PM justatruthseeker has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 173 (699825)
05-25-2013 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by justatruthseeker
05-25-2013 6:01 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
Your post is ostensibly a response to this.

I've already pointed out that none of your references cite an electrical or electromagnetic origin for gravity. For that you are forced to revert to double talk and denying what your own references actual present.

It is a complete failure.

You quote this:

quote:
The term "Maxwell's equations" is often used for other forms of Maxwell's equations. For example, space-time formulations are commonly used in high energy and gravitational physics. These formulations defined on space-time, rather than space and time separately are manifestly[note 1] compatible with special and general relativity. In quantum mechanics, versions of Maxwell's equations based on the electric and magnetic potentials are preferred.

Is this supposed to be some evidence that General Relativity is of electro- magnetic origin? It says nothing of the sort.

and your commentary does not bridge the gap.

So you want to use electromagnetic formulas to postulate your ideas of what gravity is, even though you admit you don't know what it is, and then exclude any possibility that gravity is electromagnetic???????? Ok, fine, then why are you using the electromagnetic formulas to do it????? Let's talk about Double-talk, shall we?

General relativity does not use Maxwell's equations, it uses equations based on space-time rather than on space and time separately exactly as your reference says. In another reference you yourself point out yet another distinction. Maxwell's equations are linear differential equations while Einstein's equations are a set of non-linear differential equations.

But let's be clear. Your reference uses the term "Mawel's Equations" to refer to equations distinct than those applied to electricity and magnetism by Maxwell. It is a silly stretch to call those things "electromagnetic formulas", but even if accept that nomenclature, that does not imply that gravity is generated by electromagnetic forces. It would mean that gravity uses a form of equation that has some relation to equations used to describe electric phenomena.

You next quote two paragraphs from wikipedia's description of General relativity.

quote:
The Einstein field equations (EFE) or Einstein's equations are a set of 10 equations in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity which describe the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by matter and energy. First published by Einstein in 1915 as a tensor equation, the EFE equate local spacetime curvature (expressed by the Einstein tensor) with the local energy and momentum within that spacetime (expressed by the stress–energy tensor).

Similar to the way that electromagnetic fields are determined using charges and currents via Maxwell's equations,....Maxwell's equations are partial differential equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to each other and to the electric charges and currents. Often, the charges and currents are themselves dependent on the electric and magnetic fields via the Lorentz force equation and the constitutive relations. These all form a set of coupled partial differential equations, which are often very difficult to solve. In fact, the solutions of these equations encompass all the diverse phenomena in the entire field of classical electromagnetism. A thorough discussion is far beyond the scope of the article, but some general notes follow.


Note that the paragraph points out similarities and differences between Maxwell's equations and Einstein's, with the main distinction being that Maxwell's equations relate charges and currents electrical and magnetic field, while Einstein's do not. Einstein' equations instead relate mass, momentum, shear and stress to the warping of space. That's what your reference says.

Yes there are some similarities in form. Both sets of equations are differential equation, but it is quite clear that Einstein's equations are not electromagnetic in nature.

As for the last paragraph you quote, it is totally irrelevant. In fact, most of this stuff is a smoke screen to hide the fact that you have no response to my criticism of your rubber sheet thought experiment.


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 58 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 6:01 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-25-2013 9:55 PM NoNukes has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 60 of 173 (699828)
05-25-2013 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by NoNukes
05-25-2013 7:58 PM


Re: I know it's a wasted effort.
First of all you need to stop misleading people.

General Relativity is nothing but a generalization of Special Relativity, it is but a subset thereof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

quote:
General relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime.

So, for GRT to apply, it cannot violate SRT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

quote:
Special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the physical theory of measurement in an inertial frame of reference proposed in 1905 by Albert Einstein in the paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".

As I said, I have no problem With his paper in the least, it was a physical attempt to explain the electromagnetic properties of space. Even though every action must have an equal and opposite reaction, he then tried to do a force free interpretation. And as interview after interview with the man said, he was never satisfied with his GRT theory.

http://www.pitt.edu/...general_relativity_pathway/index.html

quote:
By his own later judgment, Einstein did not, in the end, find a theory that fully satisfied Mach's Principle. The immediate benefit of his new principle of equivalence, however, was that it let Einstein learn a lot about gravitation. For the principle delivered to Einstein one special case of a gravitational field that, he believed, conformed with relativity theory and in which all bodies truly fell alike. Einstein's program of research on gravity in the five years following 1907 was simply to examine the properties of this one special case and to try to generalize them to recover a full theory. His early hope was that the generalization of the principle of relativity would somehow emerge in the course of those investigations.

In the end, he was never satisfied that GRT met this principle of Mach's, but hoped someday it would emerge. A theory has emerged in the course of those investigations, one that does not call for Fairie Dust, but relies on the very force that all of relativity is based upon, the speed of light, the electromagnetic phenomenon. The cause of the very force that binds the atom.
http://www.ndt-ed.org/...llege/Materials/Structure/bonds.htm

The very force left out in today's twisted interpretation of the underlying force of which SRT was based. This is why you are unable to unite the micro and macro theories, even though you have been trying for over 100 years to do so. Because in one (Micro) the atomic theory you include the electrical force, and in the other (macro) galactic you ignore it, except in your transforms, and then promptly ignore it again. You admit the universe is 99% plasma, then ignore it in every explanation. You measure vast magnetic fields in space then promptly ignore every laboratory experiment ever conducted in magnetic research.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/...ng/302l/lectures/node69.html

Nevermind that magnetic fields could ever exist in a material without a constant electric current at the temperatures of the sun.

http://www.mceproducts.com/...e-base/article/article-dtl.asp


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 7:58 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 05-25-2013 10:40 PM justatruthseeker has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019