homie12

,or why no two astronomical bodies have been shown to repel each other.

 

Does the sun have a net negative or positive charge? Why?

Assumptions

Physical theories are nothing more than succinct mathematical approximations of reality. These approximations are in turn limited by the theory’s basic Assumptions (which may be stated or unstated). Unfortunately, these limiting, fundamental assumptions upon which much of physics depends are not always inclusive of the diversity of physical reality. Assumptions are clearly a fundamental aspect of what physicists like to call “The Laws of Physics”, but all too often the assumptions are not stated explicitly with the law. This omission often results in a misinterpretation of the law, or a faulty assumption as to the applicability of the law in certain cases. The Laws of Thermodynamics are a noteworthy case in point, as are the Assumptions of Classical Mechanics.

In the realm of applicability where Classical Mechanics is still considered valid (i.e. non-relativistic situations), the premier example of this branch of physics, Newton’s Laws, are technically bound by certain assumptions. These include the fact that Newton’s Laws are only applicable to a mass without dimensions (i.e. a point mass) and one which is a rigid body. A second, perhaps more fundamental assumption is that the action-reaction of the Third Law is simultaneous. As it turns out, none of these assumptions are valid in many cases, and in general are only approximations -- albeit, some of the approximations can be entirely sufficient for many practical applications.

The assumption of absolute time (or simultaneity) when the action is at a distance is the critical factor. In general, the “reaction” of a body to an externally applied force can not be initiated simultaneously with the initial application (“action”) of the external force. This lack of simultaneity is due in part to the limitations of speed to below that of light (from electromagnetic theory) and in some cases below that of the speed of sound for mechanical systems. This profound restriction on Newton’s Laws brings time into the equation -- for example, a sudden surge (an “action”) of electrical current along a conductor will also result in an equal and opposite “reaction” -- but not simultaneously!

Even more noteworthy is the fact that sudden and abrupt physical acts or intuitive realizations follow the same framework. The point to be emphasized here is the laws of mechanics are applicable in the electromagnetic realm and vice versa, and that mechanics, electromagnetism, other areas of physics, everyday experiences, creativity, and consciousness are not separate or unrelated, but wholly interconnected

Just to let you know, I owe you a follow up on this question. I was trying to find a mathematical or physical explanation instead of some experts statement. So i will get back to you on this 1 thanks

Don Scott mentioned it. It's called the island of stability. He refers to it in nuclear chemistry.

yes but have you tried it? you certainly waste no time in criticizing it. try some of these overunity devices. what book have you read on electricity? and what actual experimentation have you done yourself?

imhotepslabs_freeforums_org.htm did i forget to give you this link?

All I am saying is you must be very careful using youtube as a credible source of scientific information. I am sure there are some great things on there, just be careful and skeptical.

 

 

 

 

I have several at my disposal here in my study.

 

 

 

I don't have much interest doing experiments myself. I leave that to the experts.

thats an incriminating disclaimer.

All I am saying is you must be very careful using youtube as a credible source of scientific information. I am sure there are some great things on there, just be careful and skeptical.

 

 

 

 

I have several at my disposal here in my study.

 

 

 

I don't have much interest doing experiments myself. I leave that to the experts.

but your avatar says you are an expert

imhotepslabs_freeforums_org.htm did i forget to give you this link?

 

 

thats an incriminating disclaimer.

 

 

but your avatar says you are an expert

the youtube thing was what im saying i did. yes i got the idea on youtube but i actually did this and im getting voltage. thenext projects will be from imhoteps site.

The good old and very reliable source of youtube.

 

In my opinion, a good physics text book is always going to beat youtube. Not that youtube has no place in dissemination of scientific ideas, but for the untrained eye it will be hard to sort out the good from the rubbish.

yes but have you tried it? you certainly waste no time in criticizing it. try some of these overunity devices. what book have you read on electricity? and what actual experimentation have you done yourself?

Many tens of thousands of us would. There are many from outside the United States who would have to be in on the secret. Students from all over the word would have to be in on the secret. Do you really think there are no students in Italy who are working on the GOCE or LARES experiments wouldn't just love to make the US look stupid? People whose very job it is to understand gravitation would have to be in on the secret. The thousands of people around the world working on this topic would blurt it out. Think of the scientific papers they would get their names on if they did. The thousands who work on precise orbit determination and rendezvous/docking in space would have to be in on the secret. They vast majority do not have any kind of security clearance. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who can't say what they do (google the terms "geospatial intelligence" and "gravimetric MASINT") who would have to be in on the secret. Some of them would almost certainly leak the secret to Jane's or Aviation Week.

 

 

 

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

 

 

Aside:

- Sentences start with a capital letter.

- They end with a single period, not two or three or more.

- There is no space before the ending period.

- Proper names, such as Richard Dolan, start with capital letters.

- So do titles of books, even if they are nonsense books.

- Electricity is spelled "electricity", not "electgricity".

- Text speech, such as " ill post a list" and "Not 1 of you has reviewed thunderbolts of the gods" is something best avoided.

 

If you want to be taken seriously, write seriously.

 

Aside finished, what about Richard Dolan? He's just another crackpot. What is it that attracts you to all of these crackpots? There is a world of wonder out there in real science. Crackpots have nothing to offer. I suggest that you try learning some real science rather than glomming on to any and every crackpot notion you can find on the web.

you are teaching me english composition? and you cant review the material first? what is everyone afraid of? take yourself serious.

why ask the question if you already know the answer? you know the proverb: hear no evil speak no evil see no evil? look up Richard Dolan, he is an academic historian. Check out his credentials. Then reply and in an honest manner, no matter your grammer or syntax or typing problems.

Anyone with a science degree that requires taking physics has enough expertise to falsify the claim that electricity or magnetism is responsible for the attraction of planetary bodies.

 

The speculations forum has some additional rules, the first of which is Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. You need to stop tap-dancing around the issue and address points that have been raised with some honest-to-goodness evidence or a workable model that can be tested. You've had nearly two weeks to present something other than waving of the hands. It's "put up or shut up time". (though technically it's probably at least half-past put up or shut up time)

 

 

 

Regardless, the subject matter here is the "theory" itself. Discussion of the level of Tesla's crackpottery should happen elsewhere.

you are a moderator? have you any experience with electricity? Are my hints and link not enough? you have a lot of nerve pasting quotes from those sources. Isd this the precursor to controling the evidence? watch thunderbolts of the gods for yourself and stop acting like you know everything. your the mod you have all the power in here. tesla created every electrical convienence in the 20th century. how can you call him a crackpot unless you are the pot thats cracking. I think I need to research the legitimacy of this site.

Off topic nonsense?? Believe me, there is little in this thread I could steal. But it was you who made the insinuation that people who believe in an electrical universe are crack pots, not me. Tesla was one of the best at believing in that concept, and I don't picture him as a crack pot!

I made a circuit that produces voltage. Just as tesla was saying. Look up all of john bedini s creations and imhoteps site. And please anyone reading this, dont just cheapshot me actually look at those .

Anyone with a science degree that requires taking physics has enough expertise to falsify the claim that electricity or magnetism is responsible for the attraction of planetary bodies.

 

The speculations forum has some additional rules, the first of which is Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. You need to stop tap-dancing around the issue and address points that have been raised with some honest-to-goodness evidence or a workable model that can be tested. You've had nearly two weeks to present something other than waving of the hands. It's "put up or shut up time". (though technically it's probably at least half-past put up or shut up time)

 

 

 

Regardless, the subject matter here is the "theory" itself. Discussion of the level of Tesla's crackpottery should happen elsewhere.

you are an expert swansont and you never ran across this?

Just because someone has made significant and valid discoveries in one area doesn't follow that everything they say threreafter is valid. Even Einstein got things wrong. I'm sure that quote is out of context....you need to have sufficient knowledge to give the imagination something to work with...more knowledge equals more permutations of ideas. You can't design (imagine) a car if you don't know all the necessary components and principles (knowledge) required to make one (invention).

 

Knowledge + Imagination = Invention

 

The mark of great intelligence is a high capacity for both.

especially einstein got things wrong. Newton didnt know much about EM during his time but einsteins dad and uncle were electrical contractors. So shame on him for excluding anything electrical.

Just because someone has made significant and valid discoveries in one area doesn't follow that everything they say threreafter is valid. Even Einstein got things wrong. I'm sure that quote is out of context....you need to have sufficient knowledge to give the imagination something to work with...more knowledge equals more permutations of ideas. You can't design (imagine) a car if you don't know all the necessary components and principles (knowledge) required to make one (invention).

 

Knowledge + Imagination = Invention

 

The mark of great intelligence is a high capacity for both.

especially einstein got things wrong. Newton didnt know much about EM during his time but einsteins dad and uncle were electrical contractors. So shame on him for excluding anything electrical.

I suppose Tesla was also a crackpot? A great scientist-mathematician and physicist once said:The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination. Albert Einstein

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue61/chargeclusters.html forward that amomgst those links tis is one from them. Swansot do you review the material you forward? I think they are proving my point.?

Anyone with a science degree that requires taking physics has enough expertise to falsify the claim that electricity or magnetism is responsible for the attraction of planetary bodies.

 

The speculations forum has some additional rules, the first of which is Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. You need to stop tap-dancing around the issue and address points that have been raised with some honest-to-goodness evidence or a workable model that can be tested. You've had nearly two weeks to present something other than waving of the hands. It's "put up or shut up time". (though technically it's probably at least half-past put up or shut up time)

 

 

 

Regardless, the subject matter here is the "theory" itself. Discussion of the level of Tesla's crackpottery should happen elsewhere.

C:\Users\home\Desktop\imhotepslabs_freeforums_org.htm

would you like a further explanation?

It is too much trouble, so no.

 

 

 

I'm saying that appealing to authority in the manner I described is wholly without utility in a rational and reasonable debate... Especially online where the credentials of a contributor are not able to be validated, and where the content and logic of a post is given greater priority over the background of the person who makes it.

Wow, thats better than I would have said it. But also, being an expert in something means you have a vested interest in it. Which most gefinitely has an affect on ones objectivity. So, can an expert be dishonest? you betcha. Especially when they refuse to look at all the evidence. Where are all of the electrical experts? Do all of these science related sites exclude electricity. If so why? Im conducting experiments that show we live in an electrical field. Who can help me with that?

"power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely." So who is corrupt? Or just a slur in general?

 

"but you cant blame the home crowd for defending their home" No, but you could also acknowledge that they might be defending it for a reason other than blind clan loyalty. Perhaps because they believe in a shared concept of the importance of science, intellectual rigour, and rationalism which is common to both the forum in general and the individual members in particular.

Yes you are right about that. I should list in order of importance. But I should just concentrate my point and then have everything thrown out im saying with some blanket statement or even a cheapshot. The important thing i think is what ever my idea is, it's not getting forwarded by chaotic trashing of subject matter. So as i try i will learn and thanks for your response

Perhaps you missed the other one I shared... The one from which I quoted?

 

 

 

This certainly appears to be the case.

 

 

Your bold shows why this is something different than what I'm discussing.

Im sorry I dont follow what you said. If its not too much trouble could you re state your point? and again Im sorry for losing track of your point.

Where did you read that?

 

Obtaining a stable orbit is pretty simple. Lift the object out of the bulk of the atmosphere and give it a horizontal velocity somewhere between 17,500 and 24,700 miles per hour. Achieving a precise orbit is a bit more taxing.

 

 

 

Where did you read that?

 

Rocket science is not all that exact a science -- at least not the thrust (typical variance from expected thrust is 2 to 10 percent, depending on the thruster), or the delta V (typical variance from expected performance is a percent or so). This is one of reasons why spacecraft control systems are so hideously complex.

 

 

 

How did you read that into the link I provided?

 

There were no changes in how they create trajectories. They didn't complicate the launch. That launch was quite simple compared to modern ones. They just didn't know the initial trajectory all that well. The vehicle gave slightly better performance than nominal.

 

Suppose Hoagland was right, that there is a fifty year old secret. Our allies and our enemies would also have to be in on the secret or they would not be able to have satellites orbiting the Earth the way we do. I would have to have been informed of that secret to do my jobs. Tens of thousands of others like me would have to have been informed of it as well -- and that includes students from all over the world. Somebody would have spilled the beans long ago.

 

There is no secret. Hoagland is just lying (again).

Or all of you would have to be not in on this secret . I dont trust the government. and if you did you would let them do your tax returns for example. Have you heard of richard dolan?

Swansont's question and my question are both quite major problems to be dealt with. They are not marginal details. If you don't even have the workings of what might be considered an explanation already, why do you even advocate the electric universe/plasma cosmology shtuff?

 

Do you think it's right because it sounds cool? I'm getting the feeling you've no logical grounding to base your opinion on. Not intended as an insult, sorry if it comes across that way. Imagine me speaking in a kind voice .

And you think you make sense after that? lol in any voice. Not 1 of you has reviewed thunderbolts of the gods. And how many of you experts have any background in electgricity? So please be fair

And you think you make sense after that? lol in any voice. Not 1 of you has reviewed thunderbolts of the gods. And how many of you experts have any background in electgricity? So please be fair

oh and im not trying to be cool or whatever you think appeals to the masses. An opinion being popular is no guarantee of the truth.

I read that obtaining a stable orbit was a pretty exact formula and that rocket performance in achieving it was exact also. Hoagland states the initial trajectory was 800 miles off or something to account for the missing 12 minutes. they assert that during that launch they were changing how they create trajectories? or why was it nescessary to complicate that launch?

i am getting good experience on how to present my point properly thanks. and i see some same old adages. power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely. but you cant blame the home crowd for defending their home. so if 1 wants to function in said home he has to find a viable talent or service. im working on it boss.

i get barraged with it

nice disclaimer

Far from it, but then, I don't generally engage in factual discussions in which I don't have some amount of expertise, and I try and make it clear when I am making an educated guess rather than calling upon my experience. I do offer opinions when we are sharing pinions, and I do cite sources that I think are credible, but that's not an appeal to authority.

 

Also, the issue of "never had to use an appeal to authority to support an argument" is a far cry from "precisely/exactly how this forum works". The latter would mean that we e.g. debunk anti-relativity arguments by saying "Einstein said so" and that's just not what happens.

 

 

 

I'd venture to say that the crackpot level correlates strongly with how vigorously they shake those 'skins.

ok butit was my contention also that saying einstein said so was what happens most of the time or too much of the time

Do that. It's your claim that gravity is wrong, therefore your burden of proof to provide the experiments that show it to be wrong. Including all those that confirm that it's right. Or worked, but would not have worked if gravity were wrong. It's a pretty long list.

 

Maybe you can start by trying to explain how/why uncharged objects fall.

I claim that the standard model of the sun is wrong or that EU claims that. I emailed wal thornhil as i dont have don scotts address. Ill post the list when it arrives. thanks

who is the expert that wrote that book?

At first thought, this information would seem to edify/confirm the professionalism of this forum. At second thought, it might also have a dampening effect on discussions here ... once a highly-qualified moderator speaks, others may be less inclined to speak up, let alone disagree. As with government-appointed officials, we entrust their appointment to the chief executive, and I think it works well here.

 

 

I find some of the most unqualified eyes have the most refreshing perspectives, and the speculations and questions that flow from those perspectives. Although an OP may quickly be found to be wrong or trivial, it can spark variants in people's minds that can lead to interesting discussions and elucidations that are otherwise unattainable.

 

Having said that, what I can't stand (and refuse to read) are rambling, 5,000-word, cut-and-paste views of reality by newcomers (post doc, rank amateur etc, it doesn't matter). Sorry (not really ), but if you can't give us a one-screenful-or-less (<500-word) summary of your manifesto, then I'm not bothering to read it. I know plenty of others here will read it, but not me (and I don't think I'm alone on this).

yes very excellant all of your points thanks for that.

How can you say that? Our staff of mods and experts, as well as many of our very knowledgeable non-staffers almost always back up their assertions with references, and or somewhat detailed scientific logic/precedent. Has anyone on the staff ever made an assertion and then flashed their pedigree as their only evidence?

 

Science is hard and requires expertise that comes from years of grueling education and training. I will readily admit that I'm probably the least of experts among experts (we have some absolute BEASTS of science here on the staff). Would you be willing to put your physics knowledge up against that of swansont or your mathematics knowledge up against ajb or Dr. Rocket?

 

If not than you would be well advised to listen to their teaching and insight. I do.

Well my point about this is,none of those guys are electrical engineers nor plasma physicists. I am not briliant or with new ideas. I just found what i feel is a new understanding of how the universe works. And not 1 of you so far has adressed any specific detail of this. For instance the standard model of the sun doesnt explain much. Gravitational theory isnt able to allow us individuals access to experimentation. So we are stuck believing the company line. If 1 thing might help to be more objective its can we have a better understanding of electricity and magnetism. 1 fact you cant take from me is ive done some so called overunity experiments. And so far I'm getting more electricity than im using. So whats really going on in space or the intire universe? and thanks for your responses.

Understanding =/= Gullible.

 

Electricity cannot explain orbital dynamics. That "theory" is garbage.

Can gravity explain electro magnetism? Which the EU people contend is what most of the universe is about. Am I too vague? thanks for your responses

It really helps when you address the forum in complete thoughts. I've tried using 'cute' and colourful language and it generally gets lost in translation. Right now your statements are completely justifying the negative attitudes that some are taking towards individuals who have less interest in what the forum is about. The problem with that is it closes the forum and that really sucks capiche?

Its a technique i have found effective to find out what detractors are laying in ambush out there. Otherwise, yes thats part of what im trying to learn, thanks. And learn I have. Im trying to make notes now and without all of your inputs I wouldnt have such a large data base. This isnt the first site I have been doing personal research in. But I will say i am impressed with all of you. Dont cut me slack now and thanks for your responses

I've seen your posts about the electric universe garbage. You're honestly so stupid about it that I think you're trolling. Ergo, I deemed not to waste my time explaining precisely why you're stupid.

wow and I thought you were of the understanding nature. Well funny thing is how are you going to learn anything about the EU from anything ive posted so far? Are you that lazy or near sighted or afraid to come out from under the stairs? I would really like to know. and thanks for your responses.

if any of you wants to be someones daddy, just look in here at which people you would be proud of to be their parent,,, Then think how tough it is to be admin on this site..

In a few months, I'll graduate with a degree on Physics, concentration in Astronomy, and a degree in English, concentration on technical writing. I am not an "expert". But I've taken enough physics and maths to know when someone doesn't have the slightest clue what he or she is talking about.

 

 

 

This is your only logical point. But in the context of this forum, it's completely irrelevant. If some whack job starts writing psuedoscience, he is almost *immediately* straightened out by a member of the staff or an "expert" in the field. So tell me again: Why is it a good idea to mandate that the mods and experts disclose their credentials?

when will astronomers get some electrical engineering experience?

do not pass go or collect 200 dollars until you obtain some pertainent knowledge??

most of the field of astronomy has no clue. how you going to fix that?

it would be nice if it was you.

homie = local or familiar person 1 2 = wants to. You guys can be so low brow when u want to be. Or some of you anyway. and have you ever touched your antenna on the high voltage lines above? The ticket to where might be inquired?

OH and hey dudes i was merely ensiting emotional responses. This thread of mine does not want to know or classify nor stratify anyone. i want to know where each one of you stands and not the conditioned answers you prepare. So dont debate each other,,, just tell me how you think? ,,, ya right...

I'll take a look, I am open minded, I'm just very busy so I have to choose what is more important. It's still one of those see it to believe it!

well he has an impressive academic pedigree but he has documents from freredom of info act and other military and government sources

No organism could obtain enough energy for locomotion through photosynthesis exclusively, it would have to be close to 100% efficient, a chemoautotroph might be possible, i am not sure about the energy density for that.

 

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

 

 

 

 

As i said, the efficiency is just not great enough, the energy conversion for light to carbohydrates is just not enough , it's possible it might be dormant most of it's life cycle and store energy to walk around in short bursts but the energy density is why we see no walking trees on earth and I have to assume the same laws of physics apply every where...

 

 

 

 

That is a machine, it uses very little energy, doesn't have to support a biological metabolism much less a brain...

"(e.g. if it's assumed that aliens are like trees", theres no reason to assume this paradigm strictly