Eldad Eshel

Does dark matter surround a galaxy in a sphere shape ? Does this sphere have a constant density ? Or a changing one, like less and less dark matter towards the outer rim of the sphere ?

 

If you are interested in understanding it then why not do some kind of physics course?

I am actually going back to school to study physics. I started some years ago, finished a few courses, and stopped. I hope I won't stop this time and go the full run to a PhD. That is my goal anyway.

Electromagnetism is very enteresting because it is complex and yet holds certain symmetries, making it also simple. Not as simple as gravitation, which is basically large objects pulling each other towards each other. Electromagnetism is a bit more complex yet is also very symmetrical, for example the similar charges of the electron and proton, with opposite signs of course. There is something in the nature of things that causes all this, and I think it also deserves some kind of simple explanation to go with it.

 

 

Maxwells' equations explain electric fields and how a changing electric field produces magnetic forces, and vice versa.

 

They do this quantitatively, producing useful results that are used by technology (e.g. the design of motors, dynamos or transformers). You vague idea doesn't (and, as far as I can can see, can't) do anything like that. It appears to be entirely useless.

His equations bring out the math of electromagnetism, they do not explain how it works literally. What he did explain (in words), is how light "works". Which was a milestone in explanatory physics.

General relativity explains how gravitation works, in words not just in math, also a milestone in explanatory physics, while Newton's laws bring out the math of it, without actually understanding how the force works. Einstein tried to form a theory about electromagnetism, to explain it like he did gravitation, but from I understand was unsuccessful, and then came QED. Which in my view does not explain how electromagnetism works either.

You need to differentiate between the math and the explanation in words of the system in hand. A good theory needs both, like general relativity.

Actually I was talking about the much simpler classical one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations#Vacuum_equations.2C_electromagnetic_waves_and_speed_of_light

 

It allows you to calculate the speed of light from electrical measurements without actually measuring light.

That indicates that it has some fundamental"reality" to it (because, if you do the calculation and make the measurements you get the same answer either way)

 

can your idea do anything like that?

 

What advantage(s) can you find for your idea?

Does it make verifiable predictions?

Does it explain things that were not explained by other theories?

If it can't do that sort of thing, what use is it?

As I said; you do not have a theory- you have a guess.

My idea isn't about light it is about how the electric force works. And vice versa maxwell's theories do not directly explain how the electric force works, they explain how light "works", which is neat on it's own, using electromagnetism.

Again, I do not know yet how to approach my idea mathematically, maybe the correct math of it will yield interesting results.

"Does it explain things that were not explained by other theories?"

Yes, it explains how the electric, and further on the magnetic forces work, which other theories do not.

Quantum electrodynamics tries to do this, but ends up in a total mess.

Um yeah that's kind of the point. The math covers the forces involved.

The maths is used to make accurate falsifiable predictions of what happens in reality. Maths is required my modern physics to make accurate petitions.

Having correct math is nice and all in it's own aspect, but I don't think it alone is enough, I think a simple explanation that can be used in words with no math is also needed, for example if you want to explain it to kids in school.

I am not a mathematician, and do not yet know the math involved in my theory, it could also be correct.

We already have a very good theory for electromagnetism.

Why is this new hypothesis (its is not a theory) better?

Please show us ho you would use it to calculate the speed of light.

If it can't do that then it's not as good as the current theory based on Maxwells's work.

Are you talking about quantum electrodynamics ? I wouldn't say that theory really explains how electromagnetism works, it is more of a bunch of math.

So you're suggesting that electric charge is a 5th dimension that is neither space nor time?

Possibly. I am not yet sure if this new dimension exists inside the conventional 3 dimensional space, or is a detached dimension on it's own. Something interesting to think about or research.

I have come up with a theory for electromagnetism, and what to share it with you here.

You can picture to yourself one dimension, in which one side is plus is and the other is minus. A particle has a certain property on this dimension, it can be plus, minus or neutral. When particles with similar signs come near each other they occupy one another's space on this dimension and repel each other. And when they have opposite signs they balance each other on the dimension and attract each other. This is the principle by which the electric force works. The certain charges of the particles and their symmetry (the electron has a certain electric charge, and the proton has the same charge only with an opposite sign, for example) come from the fact that this dimension is finite, and part of a triangle, The Triangle (That can be read about here - link removed by moderator ) , and so their presides a symmetry.

I was thinking about the electric field, and came up with an idea, tell me if it is valid.

Perhaps electrons and protons (and other carriers of the force) bend space in such a way that electrons (and other negative particles) bend it to one direction, while protons (and other positive particles) bend it to the other direction. In this way also the electrons repel each other, as do protons, while electrons and protons attract each other. I am not sure if this bending of space is in 3 or 4 dimensions, 4 seems more reasonable to me though.

Here is a picture -

The math I believe stays the same. But the theory is a bit different. Or am I missing something ?

I can actually take QED and make it simpler. It is mainly in the terms used. What I do is I look at the electromagnetic forces as bssic forces in the universe, sort of like the electron is a basic particle with basic properties. The basic layout of our universe, made to work and create. Then I take the "virtual photons" (probably the most confusing term) and see them as quanta of the electric field. Particles also emit photons in their turn, but these two aren't necessarily related.

A question that rises from modern physics is - Is our universe really that complicated ? I personally think that the answer is - no.

And that overall things needs to be simplified, mainly in theory. (Math is math.) Not because I don't understand it, but because the nature of the universe isn't really as complicated as modern physics make it look like. Such a basic force like electromagnetism should also be able to be described in a basic and simple way. And without such a confusing term as virtual particles.

Carriers of forces are generally called virtual particles, a very confusing term. I think this term should
be abandoned, in favor of the term "carriers of the force" or .. something better. These are not particles at all, but are quanta of the force in question. Basically forces break up into quanta, just like electromagnetic energy, they are also a type of energy. The term "virtual photons" is even more confusing, leading you to think these are some kind of photon, when it isn't. It should be clear that not everything is a particle, and so also their names should be in accordance. Even the photon isn't a particle, but a quanta of electromagnetic energy. Maybe a new term is needed here too. Well the term quanta seems best.

I'm also curious why he needs to put his hands so close if he's using his mind to move the wheel? Do the psi powers come through his brain and out his fingers? Surely if this was a mental ability, his hands would be unnecessary.

I commented on this before, the "power" isn't just from the mind but from our entire being. Also I can move it with no hands, but they help.

As it is, you're asking busy scientists to seriously consider that your hands or your breath aren't affecting your stupid wheel that's designed to take advantage of both.

It's not my breath or my hands. And busy ? Really ? Science seems so stuck, it's actually hard to believe scientists have anything to do. This here is a breaking point, is something new to explore, you should accept it gladly and not be so negative.

Anyway, I made a video, quite a good one I think. Please watch it fully.

This sounds exactly like your last thread on this. No attempt to eliminate outside causes, no attempt at setting up experiments that more accurately measure, no attempt to be more rigorous at all.

 

If you aren't going to do anything differently, if you aren't going to apply some science to your assertions, why are you opening this thread (again)?

As I said I plan to go the academy and go through anything they ask. I am a bit too simple minded for your demands, at least to conduct on my own. This case is different as, as I have said, It is ALWAYS MOVING. I get it to move very easily. I will try to make a video, and let you see what I mean.

"No attempt to eliminate outside causes, no attempt at setting up experiments that more accurately measure, no attempt to be more rigorous at all."

The glass bowl is the best example of what you are asking and I tried, and unfortunately I can't get it to move yet with it covering the wheel.

Sadly my original post was closed, so I will continue here, on what seemed to be ok with the moderators.

I have bought tin foil and made a Psi Wheel out of it. At first I made a big one and the results were not so good, then I made a smaller one, and the results were excellent. It basically moves/spins ALL THE TIME I am trying to get it to move. When I leave it alone and back away it is still. This is quite exciting for me, and I think I am just about ready now with these new results to go to the academy and show them this. I also tried moving it with the glass bowl covering it, but unfortunately it does not move yet. Hopefully I can get this to happen in the future. It probably requires more practise.

Basically there is a force and the virtual particles are the quanta of this force. Is this correct ?

How does the sending of particles by particles attract other particles ? For example electrons sending photons or virtual photons to a proton, or quarks sending gluons to each other.

 

 

Bolded mine:

 

When it comes to survival it’s everything, competition is fundamental to humans/animals be it in the wild or society; there is no ethical debate to be had, it just is.

I think humanity has come to a level where it is evolved enough to show more compassion to one another, and reduce the stress in everyone's life. It is evolved enough to reduce the competitiveness, and form a more sophisticated society than that of the wildlife jungle.

Competition by itself can even be positive, but when it comes to survival it is something different. Especially for young kids who barely started their lives. Kids are forced with heavy competition, which in this case and other cases is ugly and not positive at all.

By the way accomplishing university degrees isn't just about money but also about having a comfortable job. Those other jobs you mentioned are very hard and require alot of black work and even physical difficulty.

 

So you failed your exams but think you should be able to do whatever you want anyway. Meh.

I didn't fail anything.

But what if I did ? Big deal.

FFS Make your mind up!!!

I’ve shown that it’s possible to treat farm animals ethically, which you seem to agree with. I understand you’re a veggie but you’re happy to exterminate animals that threaten you.

I am not "happy" with it. I hate to kill even a cockroach in my apartment, not to mention mice, that I have an affection for.

And on the last subject, murder is still murder, even if they are raised decently. Would you like to have your head cut off, after "decent" handling ? Wouldn't you prefer to be free ? No matter the consequence, of say being killed by a wild animal. Decently being handled, to get served on a plate. You would want that for yourself ?

A cow still wants to be with it's siblings, and not get seperated from them, which I bet happens even in the most decent farms.

These animals have been taken their freedom and their ability to survive in nature. And then you say I am cruel for wanting to place them back in nature cause they won't handle it.

 

Wow, it's like you didn't read anything anyone wrote, and now you're back to square one.

 

I really dislike discussing anything with you, Eldad. You waste everyone's time with your thoughtless posts. This is just unacceptable.

I may be stubborn, but it is no more than the rest of you. We are stubborn each to our own ways of thinking. The difference is that I am one, and the rest of you are a group. So you basically accuse me cause I am not part of this group.

The thing is that there may be no other option than prohibition to stop the industrialism and cruelty of animal handling.