rigney Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 (edited) I simply have to throw this out, not as a solution; only conjecture. And any proof that I'm wrong is humbling, not devestating. I can live with that, but to simply tell me I'm wrong by your use of terminology and math beyond my grasp, is (B.S.) Someone bring this back in laymans terms and you have made a friend. If not, watch, listen and perhaps even you may learn something. By the way, I believe our magnetic universe, was infinately designed, long before the first "Big Bang". Edited February 13, 2011 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreyDergal Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 No. Thats the simplest way I can explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 There is a tendency when something new is discovered to relate everything to it. When Newton discovered the laws of motion, scientists thought everything had been explained. When laws of electromagnetism were discovered, some of them (Tesla?) thought everything could be explained through it. When holograms were invented, some scientists thought maybe the Universe was a hologram. More recently, when fractals were discovered, some thought maybe the universe was a fractal. etc. I believe that each new discovery opens a new door and that of course investigation of new discoveries is of a great importance. Besides elecricity has not been ignored since. But electromagnetism is a more than 100 years old discovery and I see no reason why standard cosmologists would conspirate in order to hide a presumed electric nature of the universe. I don't believe they are dumb either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I simply have to throw this out, not as a solution; only conjecture. Any proof I'm wrong is humbling, and I can live with that. But to simply tell me I'm wrong by using terminology and math beyond my grasp, is (B.S.) Someone bring this back in laymans terms and you have scored with me. If not, just watch and listen and maybe learn. In layman's terms? The electric Universe is pseudo-science at best but mostly BS, I've read quite a bit about it and it really sounds cool. But it fails in many areas, i won't confuse you with my own layman's terms (BS) and I'll let someone else who is more knowledgeable cut this one up in pieces. When i first encoutered it i was quite taken by some of the ideas but even if you don't have the math you can see quite a few areas that simply fail. http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction Black holes are a big problem for the Electric Universe theory, it says they don't exist and we know they do.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 (edited) In layman's terms? The electric Universe is pseudo-science at best but mostly BS, I've read quite a bit about it and it really sounds cool. But it fails in many areas, i won't confuse you with my own layman's terms (BS) and I'll let someone else who is more knowledgeable cut this one up in pieces. When i first encoutered it i was quite taken by some of the ideas but even if you don't have the math you can see quite a few areas that simply fail. http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction Black holes are a big problem for the Electric Universe theory, it says they don't exist and we know they do.... This is what I said: rigney Posted Today, 10:15 AM I simply have to throw this out, not as a solution; only conjecture. And any proof that I'm wrong is humbling, not devestating. I can live with that, but to simply tell me I'm wrong by your use of terminology and math beyond my grasp, is (B.S.) Someone bring this back in laymans terms and you have made a friend. If not, watch, listen and perhaps even you may learn something. By the way, I believe our magnetic universe, was infinately designed, long before the first "Big Bang". No where did I say our universe was an "electric Universe". Someone in the video stated that electricity plays a big part in how, even our solar system reacts to electricity. My thought is that electricity is only a part of what the universe is all about. Even if the Higgs boson turns out to be the the God Particle as theorised, I can't help but believe that the boson is magnetism in natures truest and only intrinsic form. Edited February 13, 2011 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I don't know of any magnetic fields in this solar system that'd be strong enough to cause significant influence between planets. The Earth's magnetic field is fairly wimpy. This difference in behavior makes it unlikely that gravity is just magnetism. (Also, magnetism can cause electric currents; gravity does not. There's a significant number of behavioral differences.) Now, I haven't watched the entire video you posted, so I can't go through everything he mentions. He mentions a lot of puzzles about the Sun, though, so you might be interested in NASA's STEREO probe: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/main/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 No where did I say our universe was an "electric Universe". You should probably refrain from embedding irrelevant videos if you'd like to be understood more clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 (edited) I don't know a whole lot about astronomy; No more than the introductory stellar astronomy course taught me anyway. So I've got a true layman's explanation for you, rigney: Whenever another planet passes between Earth and the sun, we don't get any magnetic shielding effects. Also, whenever objects approach another astronomical body, they don't align themselves to the magnetic field accordingly. We've never seen an asteroid or comet get repelled by the earth is what I'm trying to get at. Edited February 13, 2011 by mississippichem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 You should probably refrain from embedding irrelevant videos if you'd like to be understood more clearly. I didn't think the video was inappropriate, and if so; what is it that I should understand more clearly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I didn't think the video was inappropriate, and if so; what is it that I should understand more clearly? I didn't say it was inappropriate; I said it was irrelevant. And, according to your previous statement, it is. You said you weren't talking about the Electric Universe crackpottery in a post in which you had embedded a video of said crackpottery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Gravity being magnetism is trivially falsified. Magnetic dipoles give a force varying as r^3, and our orbits demands a 1/r^2 force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 (edited) I didn't say it was inappropriate; I said it was irrelevant. And, according to your previous statement, it is. You said you weren't talking about the Electric Universe crackpottery in a post in which you had embedded a video of said crackpottery. "Crackpottery"?! You're kidding of course, but I love it. In no way did I say our universe was electric. Just thought it might be something different for you to look at while mulling over your wisdom. Crackpottery! I'll have to remember that. But then, you're the guy with all of the right answers, but just don't give them up too easily. So, share them with us if you will. I love to listen and learn, unless it's math. Gravity being magnetism is trivially falsified. Magnetic dipoles give a force varying as r^3, and our orbits demands a 1/r^2 force. I have no idea what you are explaining to me. Conjecture was my only motive for even opening this post. But, can you or anyone prove that gravity actually exists? Yes, there are some extremely good and well documented equations that I can't deny. But then, I can show you more than a hundred ways magnetism is a workable property of both electrical and electronics, in minutes. Magnetism isn't a physical thing, but an intrinsic phenomenon of nature that is the blood of each bit of matter in the universe and beyond. Can I prove it?, Hell no! It's only an assumption in which I have a lot of faith. Edited February 13, 2011 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Tripolation Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I love to listen and learn, unless it's math. An intimate understanding of mathematics is needed if you wish to understand the fundamental forces of nature. Magnetism isn't a physical thing, but an intrinsic phenomenon of nature that is the blood of each bit of matter in the universe and beyond. Can I prove it?, Hell no! It's only an assumption in which I have a lot of faith. Then why are you asking? Swansont gave you a very good explanation as to why your assertion is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I have no idea what you are explaining to me. Conjecture was my only motive for even opening this post. But, can you or anyone prove that gravity actually exists? Yes, there are some extremely good and well documented equations that I can't deny. But then, I can show you more than a hundred ways magnetism is a workable property of both electrical and electronics, in minutes. Magnetism isn't a physical thing, but an intrinsic phenomenon of nature that is the blood of each bit of matter in the universe and beyond. Can I prove it?, Hell no! It's only an assumption in which I have a lot of faith. What swansont is explaining goes something like this: Gravity has a [imath]\frac{1}{r^2}[/imath] relation with distance. That is, the gravitational force experienced by something goes down proportional to the square of the distance. Go twice as far away and the gravity will be one-fourth as strong. Magnetic dipoles, on the other hand, have a [imath]\frac{1}{r^3}[/imath] relation with distance. Go twice as far away and the magnetism will be one-eighth as strong. The strength of the gravitational force has been measured for centuries with the torsion balance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_spring#Torsion_balance There actually was a several-story-tall torsion balance in one of the buildings on campus here years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemur Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) If you wanted to inquire into possible relationships between gravitation and electromagnetism, I would do so by starting with what you know/accept about both forces and looking for potential linkages. I'm sure many people would call this crackpottery, but as long as you are willing to accept when you are chasing a wild goose to the point of insisting that there must be some relevance to some slant-rhyme between unrelated aspects of the two forces, you should be able to postulate, deduce, and reason to your heart's satisfaction. Personally, my hunch is that gravitation is a necessary condition for EM wave propagation but what basis do I have to substantiate that besides speculation? On the other hand, what basis is there to think that EM force can exist in the absence of gravitation? Therefore, who can say that they're not related in some way? Edited February 14, 2011 by lemur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 What swansont is explaining goes something like this: Gravity has a [imath]\frac{1}{r^2}[/imath] relation with distance. That is, the gravitational force experienced by something goes down proportional to the square of the distance. Go twice as far away and the gravity will be one-fourth as strong. Magnetic dipoles, on the other hand, have a [imath]\frac{1}{r^3}[/imath] relation with distance. Go twice as far away and the magnetism will be one-eighth as strong. The strength of the gravitational force has been measured for centuries with the torsion balance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_spring#Torsion_balance There actually was a several-story-tall torsion balance in one of the buildings on campus here years ago. And the last step is that closed planetary orbits require a [imath]\frac{1}{r^2}[/imath] force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand's_theorem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted February 14, 2011 Author Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) What swansont is explaining goes something like this: Gravity has a [imath]\frac{1}{r^2}[/imath] relation with distance. That is, the gravitational force experienced by something goes down proportional to the square of the distance. Go twice as far away and the gravity will be one-fourth as strong. Magnetic dipoles, on the other hand, have a [imath]\frac{1}{r^3}[/imath] relation with distance. Go twice as far away and the magnetism will be one-eighth as strong. The strength of the gravitational force has been measured for centuries with the torsion balance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_spring#Torsion_balance There actually was a several-story-tall torsion balance in one of the buildings on campus here years ago. I can't argue with gravity. "It works"! But since I don't know how it works, I question its true place in science. With magnetism, I have the same problem. But with a couple of magnets, I can measure their strength with a simple strain gauge; lay them up on the mantle shelf and leave them there for five, ten years. And if they haven't been damaged, they will not diminish in their property by a dyne. And the math?, I started many years too late. Edited February 14, 2011 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 And the math?, I started many years too late. Your understanding of physics is severe handicapped without even the extremely basic understanding that the 1/r3 magnetic force is radically different from the 1/r2 force of gravitation. You have relegated yourself to the world of (inevitably wrong) analogies and the world of being snookered by utter crackpottery such as the video you posted in the opening post. You have been snookered. If you can't do this extremely simple high school math then you'll just have to take our word for it. Sorry, that's the way it is. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Tripolation Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 But since I don't know how it works, I question its true place in science. How can you question that which you truly do not understand? I do not understand even the basics of Quantum Mechanics, but I'm not going to question its place. I'll listen to the people who spend their lives researching it. If they say it's accurate, and hundreds of other scientists agree with them, I'll listen to them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted February 14, 2011 Author Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) You should probably refrain from embedding irrelevant videos if you'd like to be understood more clearly. I didn't think the video was irrevalent. But did I believe their theory? No more than I can believe everything coming down the pipe in some scientiic journal, trying to soothe my ignorance. I really appreciate some of you guys more than you realize, even when it hurts.! But to measure, interpolate and deduce our solar system, galaxy and entire universe on "supposed" knowledge?, Naa! I just cant go there. And DH, meaning no disrespect, but your rationale is the very reason why Madoff made off with billions. People simply believed. While I'm not a full blown skeptic, neither am I a conformist. Edited February 14, 2011 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 rigney; It's my opinion. gravity is simply missing some component to accurately explain, how it works and it does seem to work in more than one way. I've tried to bring motion, velocity and environmental conditions (friction) into the equations (back when interested) and still feel it might play a roll, if not with gravity, in combination as to an effect. I doubt any person here truly believes any theory for gravity, from Newton's Theories to Einstein's, is complete and all conclusive. As for the "need to know math", I'm sorry but anything can be explained, frankly as CR has this thread has demonstrated (disbursement), with out the listener needing do know any math. Many of these fine folks telling you math is required and I'll assume do know math, seem to forget all they know, when the discussion turns to politics and the US deficit. Anyway here is a good list of questions and answers that might be interesting to you and is meant for those first getting interested in this issue or others and I'm not trying to be funny. You don't have to be a kid to first get interested in Science or any field of it... http://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/qphy_grav.html On the Electromagnetic Field question; Are you suggesting or thinking this might plays a role on gravity, even if indirectly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted February 14, 2011 Author Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) How can you question that which you truly do not understand? I do not understand even the basics of Quantum Mechanics, but I'm not going to question its place. I'll listen to the people who spend their lives researching it. If they say it's accurate, and hundreds of other scientists agree with them, I'll listen to them. That is an inalienable right we all share here in the US as in many other countries. But to unequivocally call a thing factual without question would certainly make an idiot of me. A question that you needen't reply to, unless you wish, but do you believe in God? Out of context and with no finite answers, I apologize. But theory faith and philosophy will govern your reply. Don't be angry with me, and don't answer if you think you need not. But most of us believe in many things we aren't really sure of, or even less, understand? I'm likely just a skeptic. Edited February 14, 2011 by rigney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Tripolation Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 That is an inalienable right we all share here in the US as in many other countries. But to unequivocally call a thing factual without question would certainly make an idiot of me. A question that you needen't reply to, unless you wish, but do you believe in God? Out of context and with no finite answers, I apologize. But theory faith and philosophy will govern your reply. Don't be angry with me, and don't answer if you think you need not. But most of us believe in many things we aren't really sure of, or even less, understand? I'm likely just a skeptic. I believe in a supreme creator deity, yes. But that falls strictly out of the realm of what can and cannot be tested. If there was provided conclusive, factual, tangible evidence that God did not exist, I would cease to believe in him. However, when you make claims that science can test, and those tests show that your claim was false, then you have to accept that. Continuing to believe those claims isn't skepticism. It's dogma. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 And DH, meaning no disrespect, but your rationale is the very reason why Madoff made off with billions. People simply believed. People wanted to be fooled. There's a sucker born every minute. The same does apply here. People who know better have said this is a crock, and that is all this is: A crock. There are lot more people out there who do not understand science and want to believe something than there are people who do know science. It is a lot easier and a lot more profitable to pander nonsense than it is to do real science (or real economics). This is the basis behind all of the electric universe nonsense, the 2012 nonsense, the young earth creationist nonsense, and a whole lot of other nonsense that can be found on the internet these days. There is a lot of good information on the internet. Unfortunately, there is even more bad information than good on the 'net. Learning to distinguish between the bad and the good admittedly is not easy. This electric universe / plasma universe / plasma cosmology crap has been pitched one too many times (or rather, ten-plus too many times) just at this site. To be rather blunt, it gets kinda old seeing the same nonsense come up again and again. To make matters worse, there is no arguing with crackpots; they are after all immune to logic and evidence. I am not saying that rigney is a crackpot. He has however been duped by crackpots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I didn't think the video was irrevalent. Then you were talking about the electric universe. Either you were or you weren't; pick one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now