If you want on or off the Electric Universe Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 08/28/2008 6:34:55 AM PDT by Renfield
It isn't ad-hominem if it's true.
Sounds like something for your ping list, The Electric Universe
So to boil it down - what he is saying is that (applying the principle of equivalence) when an massive body attracts another body and a magnet attracts metal the same physical force is at work in both instances?
How is the above different than when you wrote: I did not read the entire article. When a Scientologist...
I finished the sentences in question, giving it context. You didn't. That's the difference.
At the very least you left the association dangling to the extent that I could not tell whether you were making the association or not.
I think there's a reasonable expectation that a 100 word post will be read in its entirety. Do you disagree?
English was never my favorite subject...I can live with a "B" :-)
...although there was one semester in high school when I was able to take Science Fiction as Literature to satisfy my English requirement. I could have slept through it and still gotten an "A", but I enjoyed the subject so much that I helped teach the class. Even at 16, I'd read ten times more SF than the teacher!
I thought the idea of an ether was a cool idea. I mean, when you have the expansion of the universe accelerating!?, the standard theories are missing something big. Either something is pushing the galaxies outward, or gravity from massive object farther away than the most distant known galaxies is pulling them outward. In either case, acceleration means force whether repulsive or attractive. An ether could explain some of it.
As I understand it (and that's using the term very generously) 73% of the mass-energy of the universe is composed of Dark Energy. This doesn't cause a repulsive force as such, rather it expands space itself, thus accelerating the expansion of the universe. The has rather interesting implications for the ultimate fate of the universe! See the article on the "Big Rip" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip
And what is with the plethora of neutrinos?
If you're referring to the Solar Neutrino Problem, that was resolved a few years ago. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino_problem
The models now take neutrino oscillation into account.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that we are getting a lot wrong, but we get very little humility from most related scientists.
Science has always been a one-step-back two-steps-forward kind of thing. While by its nature it can never give you the Ultimate Truth, its models become more and more accurate over time.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter are what is known as "fudge factors" to explain things that are otherwise unexplainable. No one has ever found any of either. But to make the standard cosmology work, they had to invent the concepts of Darks Matter and Dark Energy simply so they would not have to toss everything out and start all over again.
The test of any theory in science is how well it can explain newly observed events based on that theory. Modern Cosmologists are continually being surprised by what they are observing in the Universe... and are at a loss to explain what they see using the accepted theories.
Herbig-Haro objects are plentiful in the Universe. Hundreds have not been catalogued. Some of them are up to 20 light years in length.
To explain the narrow tornado-like jet, the Hubble page says: “Material either at or near the star is heated and blasted into space, where it travels for billions of miles before colliding with interstellar material." Does a star have the ability to create collimated jets across (not billions, but) trillions of miles by merely 'heating' material in its vicinity? The matter in the jet is hot and it is moving through a vacuum. If one is to use an analogy with water, the better example would be a super-heated steam hose. It will not form a jet of steam for more than a few feet before the steam disperses explosively.
They have no credible explanation using a gravity driven model, yet are fully explicable using a electro-magnetic model.
There is no gravity. Everything sucks.
Interesting assertion. What, exactly, nauseated you?
"Conventional wisdom" these days strikes me as being more Orwellian than anything else. Then again, maybe I'm paranoid...
bookmark for later
 |
||
| · join · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post new topic · | ||
It is a bunch of pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo. There are direct contradictions in their own article. They state that, “electromagnetic waves are far too slow to be the only means of signalling (sic) in an immense universe”, while then going on to say that the electric force acts instantaneously.
The force carrier (exchange particle or Gauge boson) of the electromagnetic interaction is the photon. The photon travels at the speed of light, therefore the electromagnetic interaction (force) also travels at the speed of light.
The picture of “electric gravity” looks like another electrostatic effect, the Van der Waals force. They can’t seem to properly distinguish in their picture or explanation between permanent and induced dipole moments. Since they are using the r^-4 dependence of the electric field between dipoles, they are assuming that all particles have a permanent dipole moment and that every particle will have exactly the same orientation, which is quite a stretch unless you assume a static system.
Also, no where in that article does the word “predicts” appear. No one answered the questions:
What does this theory predict?
What experimental evidence* supports those predictions.
* Evidence such as from a reputable peer-reviewed source.
Just as an aside, the word "signalling" is the correctly spelled version of the intransitive verb "signal" in the United Kingdom, so your indication of error (which I infer to be somewhat ad hominem, possibly intended to denigrate the author's intelligence) is incorrectly applied. The author is Australian.
I don't see pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo, I see you not comprehending the arguments and confabulating two separate concepts, electromagnetism and electric force, into one. It appears to me that you did not read the article at the link. Your claim above is out of context as is the posted article above, which is extracted from about half-way into the entire article.
Let's look at the actual quotation with at least partial context:
. . . Without accepting his model in its entirety, I consider Ralph Sansbury’s straightforward electrical theory of magnetism and gravity[15] to have conceptual merit. Simply stated, all subatomic particles, including the electron, are resonant systems of orbiting smaller electric charges of opposite polarity that sum to the charge on that particle. These smaller electric charges he calls ‘subtrons.’ This is the kind of simplification of particle physics required by Ockham’s razor and philosophically agreeable, though it leaves unanswered the real nature and origin of the subtrons. In this model, the electron cannot be treated like a fundamental, point-like particle. It must have structure to have angular momentum and a preferred magnetic orientation, known vaguely as ‘spin.’ There must be orbital motion of subtrons within the electron to generate a magnetic dipole. The transfer of energy between the subtrons in their orbits within the classical electron radius must be resonant and near instantaneous for the electron to be a stable particle. The same argument applies to the proton, the neutron, and, as we shall see —the neutrino.This model satisfies Einstein's view that there must be some lower level of structure in matter to cause resonant quantum effects. It is ironic that such a model requires the electric force between the charges to operate incomparably faster than the speed of light in order that the electron remain a coherent particle. It means that Einstein’s special theory of relativity, that prohibits signalling faster than light, must be repealed. A recent experiment verifies this. [See Experiment by N. Gisin below - Swordmaker]
Electromagnetic waves are far too slow to be the only means of signalling in an immense universe. Gravity requires the near-instantaneous character of the electric force to form stable systems like our solar system and spiral galaxies. Gravitationally, the Earth ‘sees’ the Sun where it is this instant, not where it was more than 8 minutes ago. Newton’s famous law of gravity does not refer to time.
The author clearly differentiates, which you do not, between "electromagnetism" and "electric force," two separate but related physical qualities that can have different speeds. You then use the strawman assumption that electromagnetism = electric force to shoot down the assertion that "electric force" acts almost instantaneously.
The author maintains that gravity is part of this "electric force" and that gravity's instantaneous nature implies that the "electric force" is also almost instantaneous.
. . . . A significant fact, usually overlooked, is that Newton's law of gravity does not involve time. This raises problems for any conventional application of electromagnetic theory to the gravitational force between two bodies in space, since electromagnetic signals are restricted to the speed of light. Gravity must act instantly for the planets to orbit the Sun in a stable fashion. If the Earth were attracted to where the Sun appears in the sky, it would be orbiting a largely empty space because the Sun moves on in the 8.3 minutes it takes for sunlight to reach the Earth. If gravity operated at the speed of light all planets would experience a torque that would sling them out of the solar system in a few thousand years. Clearly, that doesn't happen. This supports the view that the electric force operates at a near infinite speed on our cosmic scale, as it must inside the electron. [T. Van Flandern, The Speed of Gravity - Repeal of the Speed Limit, Meta Research, On the basis of 6 experiments the lower limit for the speed of gravity is 2x1010 C.] Do you disagree that gravity seems to react to the actual position of a body rather than the illusory location provided by the image of the body when the light from that body arrives... which will be misplaced in space by a relocation distance equal to the velocity of the attractive body times the delay created while light travels to the body being attracted? The question is "What is the speed of gravity?" It appears to be far faster than the speed of light.
There are other major issues with light's velocity being the universal speed limit. Just recently scientists in Switzerland found that some sort of signals connect "entangled" photons that seem to far exceed the speed of light:
Physicist Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva in Switzerland split off pairs of quantum-entangled photons and sent them from the university's campus through two fiber-optic cables to two Swiss villages located 18 kilometers apart. Thinking of the photons like traffic lights, each passed through specially designed detectors that determined what "color" they were when entering the cable and what color they appeared to be when they reached the terminus. The experiments revealed two things: First, the physical properties of the photons changed identically during their journey, just as predicted by quantum theory--when one turned "red," so did the other. Second, there was no detectable time difference between when those changes occurred in the photons, as though an imaginary traffic controller had signaled them both.Van Flandern's findings of the lower limit of the velocity of gravity at 2 X 1010 C and Gisin's findings of a lower limit of the force that connects the "entangled photons" of more than 104 times the speed of light (it could be greater) are quite interesting and demand more investigation. Both of these findings fly in the face of the accepted cosmology.The result, the team reports in tomorrow's issue of Nature, is that whatever was affecting the photons seems to have happened nearly instantaneously and that according to their calculations, the phenomenon influencing the particles had to be traveling at least 10,000 times faster than light. Given Einstein's standard speed limit on light traveling within conventional spacetime, the experiments show that entanglement might be controlled by something existing beyond it. Gisin says that once the scientific community "accepts that nature has this ability, we should try to create models that explain it." — Phil Berardelli, ScienceNOW Daily News, 13 August 2008.
OK then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.