BillNye123

His papers seem to subsume gravity as an extension of the electromagnetic field, and he believed in the aether. So likely not compatible with GR. But, he did say at the end that gravity is some kind of undulatory wave travelling at or at more than the speed of light. That part is right, which is impressive for 1903.

13 hours ago, Strange said:

Not true. Dark matter is perfectly consistent with GR (unlike Mercury and Newtonian gravity). 

(Of course it is possible that a new theory of gravity could provide an alternative explanation for the effects. But no one has come up with such a thing yet. And it gets increasingly difficult as we get more information about this “undetected” dark matter that makes it more certain that it is a form of matter.)

 

Any further discussion of dark matter, the validity of GR, etc would be off topic. 

Entropic gravity by Erik Verlinde?

10 hours ago, Strange said:

That seems implausible, if it is just a mathematical transformation to a different form.

There's a paper on treating this in four dimensions, so maybe it is compatible with GR.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.0930

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Can't get to the papers from your links.
Only thing I know about E T Whittaker is that, although he had a distinguished career in Mathematical Physics and Analysis, he indulged in a bit of revisionist history by attributing Special Relativity to H Lorentz and H Poincare, instead of A Einstein, who he claimed, only did a little tiding up after the fact.

Here are links

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/ORIw1903.pdf

http://www.cheniere.org/misc/Whittak/whit1904.pdf

It's true that in his History of Aether and Electricity he seemed to give equal or more credit to Lorentz and Poincare for Special Relativity. Safe to say, one reason that these papers aren't talked about more is their incompatibility with General Relativity. Whittaker may have been upset his history book and work on scalar fields were relegated to the backburner by Einstein.

These two physics papers by the famous mathematician E.T. Whittaker involve manipulating the wave equation in a way consistent with Maxwell's equations, which are Lorentz invariant. Whittaker seems to posit that the electromagnetic field can be understood not only as a vector potential and scalar potential but as the derivative of two scalar potentials (two scalar fields) that form electromagnetic radiation by intersecting each other.

Is it possible that this view of electromagnetism is somehow more fundamental than the usual one scalar potential, one vector potential? I don't know enough but I find it curious these papers were not studied more.

Whittaker 1903.pdf

Whittaker 1904.pdf

10 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Have you any evidence for that?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/24/health/dementia-risk-drug-study/index.html

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Then your perspective is far too limited for such sweeping generalizations. You read one study and decide nobody benefits from psychiatry? That's not rational. 

From your virulence, I expected you to have had a bad experience with psychiatry. This is more like you found out how the sense of smell really works and now you think everyone should have their noses cut off.

Virulence is only apparent here due to the incredible backlash my comments have caused. Maybe I was too strong in my assertions. I know many people in my life whose lives have been ruined by psychiatry. The best way to help these people, from my perspective, is to destroy the label and stop medicating people. Society did fine without this crap for thousands of years. And I am by far not alone in this belief.

Telepathy is likely impossible, but if it is it would be related to a modulated magnetic field near the human cranium. Much research has gone into this topic by government scientists working in USA and USSR. There may be an interplay between electromagnetic energy, cranial pressure, and the nervous system.

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

You've been attacking psychiatrists and Psychiatry since the OP. I questioned your motive but did not attack it. I also questioned the logic and rationality in your posts.

I make the same objections that psychiatrists Thomas Szasz, R.D. Laing and others have made. My criticisms are highly rational, they are irrational from the perspective of a psychiatrist or big pharma

From what I can tell swansont is right, voltage can be calculated in either a static or dynamic electric field at a specific time and your model only considers the former.

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I thought it was because...

 

What sparked my wish to write about this topic was the recent study that psychiatric medication causes dementia. You seem to be not only questioning and attacking what I write (even though I wish to help the "mentally ill"), but questioning and attacking my motive for starting this thread. Something you were not privy to at the time of writing. It is as though you question and attack for the sake of questioning and attacking. Some people in this thread wrote very sensible answers.

On 7/4/2019 at 10:11 PM, zapatos said:

Just because psychiatry didn't  work for you is no reason to lie about psychiatrists. You are not being rational.

The only reason I wrote this is due to the recent study that these medications cause dementia. I do not see a psychiatrist. Psychiatry is harmful.

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

For you to think that psychiatrists have a goal of curtailing the lives of patients rather than trying to help them shows how far out of touch you are.

Yeah, well, psychiatric illness is by definition chronic. When really there is no illness, and nothing is chronic.

There's a lot unknown about the universe.

I think a big area is pressure, and what happens in a black hole, and how are these united. What is gravity really? ...Considering that our current models rely on dark matter, a particle of an unknown type with unknown properties that makes up a far greater percentage of matter than all other matter combined, and that was not postulated to exist by either Einstein or the Standard Model.

There is a possibility of a bidirectional aether in the manner proposed by the famous mathematician E.T. Whittaker in 1903 and 1904, who claims that two scalar potentials can form electromagnetic waves (as opposed to one vector and one scalar potential), and he shows this in a way that is Lorentz invariant. An aether has never been fully discounted; John Bell, for example, claimed it is possible.

And finally, the human skull contains both a type of "electric circuitry" and cranial pressure. It is a type of flux capacitor in the sense that a magnetic field can be modulated near the skull and near the slow-acting "electric circuitry" that is the human nervous system. This can potentially achieve telepathic-like abilities, and this has been shown in the USSR and America during the Cold War. Much research, in fact, went into this, and links can be posted directly from the CIA website on this research.

Here are some links:

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/apr/11/cia-tesla-howitzer/

https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/articles/98spring/thomas.htm

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp88b01125r000300120041-6

All three are directly from the government. There may be an unknown interplay between cranial pressure, the nervous system, and electromagnetic fields. With emphasis on the may. But even more emphasis on "There's a lot unknown about the universe"...

There's a lot of people who don't like what I wrote, but I stand by it. I think therapy, as opposed to medication and the label, is a better approach. It's compassionate and understanding of the needs of people. The goal is to fix someone, not curtail their life.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

What do you mean by "true"? If someone displays paranoid (or delusional or other psychotic) behaviour then they are paranoid (or delusional or psychotic or whatever).

Delusional is believing something that is false. But what is false? Let's say I think someone is stalking me. How does a psychiatrist know that this is true or false? It could be true. And if it's false, why do we consider that to be "crazy"? Why not say simply "you're wrong." I don't understand the paradigm of calling someone insane, the benefit it has on the individual, and why paranoia has anything to do with it. Some people are subject to more uncertainty than others. Did someone commit a crime? Is there a rumor spreading about someone in his or her community? Did some major event occur that could bring with it paranoia?

There is no such thing as insanity in the case of paranoia. Paranoia is sometimes needed, and if it's wrons it's wrong. Doesn't mean someone is crazy. Yet a psychiatrist simply says you're nuts, gives you medication, and ruins your relationship with family and friends - forever labelled as insane.

I am not the only one to think this. Psychiatry is wrong and immoral, and has little scientific grounding.

There's a lot of responses but no one is countering anything important I said.

-Psychiatrists are not in a position to know what is true and what isn't; if someone thinks something "paranoid," well that's highly subjective, and it may be true.

-There is no evidence at all that most mental illnesses have any physical, medical basis. If they invent a test, that'd be fantastic. Until then, it's all speculation.

-Medication has negative side effects. A study from a few days ago implicates this stuff in giving patients dementia.

-A better, more cost-efficient and time-saving way of healing these people is talking to them and getting their lives on track. Not snuffing them out with a horrible label and meds.

There's no pretending it doesn't exist. It's a relic from the early 1900s, a social construct that doesn't exist. In the middle ages there was "glass disease." These things are social constructs. There's no objective tests proving otherwise.

5 minutes ago, koti said:

So I guess Schizophrenia and Dementia do not exist and are just imaginative illnesses according to you? There are also millions of suicidal children out there who are being treated by psychiatrists, don’t they exist as well?

Schizophrenia does not exist, no. There is no way of testing whether someone has schizophrenia or not. With any other physical illness there are symptoms, you test, and then you treat. But there is no testing with schizophrenia. It's simply symptoms => treatment. WIthout physical tests you don't know if someone is faking it or if someone is really going through what they claim to be going through (not delusional). And getting the label is the worst part of the ordeal; better just go to a therapist or social worker. Someone to calm you down and set you down the right path.

Suicidal children...that's different. But do the meds even work? They have plenty of adverse side effects. Once again, therapist, not psychiatrist

I have come to the conclusion that psychiatry either does not exist or should not exist.

It should not exist because it does more harm to the patient than good. Far too often a relatively normal individual with minor symptoms is diagnosed as crazy by an overzealous psychiatrist without objective diagnostic tools. The patient then takes meds that alter behavior and physiological function, as well as tarnishing his relationship with family and friends even. Psychiatry also should not exist because everyone has a right to their narrative of events; if a guy thinks his ex is stalking him or something along these lines, his narrative might be correct. A psychiatrist is in no position to discern whether something is a delusion or not. Far too often a psychiatrist labels anything as delusional.

Psychiatry does not exist because there are no physical tests to discern whether someone has a mental illness. The current hypothesis, dopomine, is just that - a hypothesis. No has has made any progress at all in determining what mental illness is, what causes it. Yet somehow diagnosis of mental health has exploded.

A good replacement is simply behavioural therapy. Reason with someone, teach them how to live.

Psychiatry should be dismantled.