Legitimacy of gravitational theory

[swansont]

which experiments? and If any of you actually reviewed just the one documentary theres no way you can just sumarily dismiss it without ignore a bunch of things. ill post a list.

 

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.

[mississippichem]

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

 

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

 

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

[swansont]

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

 

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

 

An excellent place to start. If the planets are attracted to the sun, they must repel each other. Explain the moon's behavior in that paradigm.

[homie12]

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

[mississippichem]

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

 

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 .

[homie12]

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.

[ajb]

Im waiting to chat with a mainstream electrician who has researched teslas work.

 

Mainstream electrician, try the yellow pages. That said, I am not sure how many will want to chat about Tesla with you, rewire your house is a different prospect...

 

But seriously, the electric Universe, plasma cosmology and similar things are not mainstream cosmology. Principally, they do not describe nature very well and have no experimental basis.

 

The lambda CDM model (cosmological constant + cold dark matter) fits nature very well and few cosmologists would seriously challenge this model. This is why it is know as the standard model of cosmology. There are gaps in our understanding here, including the nature of the big bang singularity and particle physics details dark matter and dark energy. These gaps should not be used to shoot down the entire model. Even then, one could not shoot down general relativity as there are astrophysical observations to take into account.

 

The biggest success of the lambda CDM model is that the predictions of the CMBR anisotropies fit the WMAP data to a huge degree of accuracy. This rules out things like cosmic strings being the main mechanism of galaxy seeding, the quasi steady state cosmology and presumably other models.

[D H]

And you think you make sense after that? lol in any voice.

mississippichem was trying to give you some sage advice. I suggest you think multiple times about following it, lest we form a bad opinion of your intellectual prowess.

 

Not 1 of you has reviewed thunderbolts of the gods.

Yes, we have. Here's a small subset of the threads where this nonsense has been addressed:

In 2007: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/25863-the-electric-sun-hypothesis/

In 2008: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/32027-a-plasma-universe/

In 2009: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/35486-how-gravity-really-works/

In 2011: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53843-was-einstein-wrong/

 

That's just a subset. After a while it gets old.

 

 

You have yet to answer any of the questions posed to you. I'll repeat them. They are simple yes/no questions.

• Has the Sun been shining for more than 4.5 billion years?
  
• Is fusion the ultimate source of energy that explains why the Sun does shine?
  
• Does gravitation explain why the planets orbit the Sun, the planets' moons orbit their planets?
  
• Does gravitation explain why the sun and other stars orbit the galaxy?
  
• At the scale of solar systems and larger, is gravitation the dominant force in the universe?
  
• Does electromagnetism play any role in explaining the cosmos?

 

Contrary to the parody of cosmology as presented by electric universe crackpots, the answer to the last question is "yes". I'll leave the others up to you.

[rigney]

mississippichem was trying to give you some sage advice. I suggest you think multiple times about following it, lest we form a bad opinion of your intellectual prowess.

 

 

Yes, we have. Here's a small subset of the threads where this nonsense has been addressed:

In 2007: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/25863-the-electric-sun-hypothesis/

In 2008: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/32027-a-plasma-universe/

In 2009: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/35486-how-gravity-really-works/

In 2011: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53843-was-einstein-wrong/

 

That's just a subset. After a while it gets old.

 

 

You have yet to answer any of the questions posed to you. I'll repeat them. They are simple yes/no questions.

• Has the Sun been shining for more than 4.5 billion years?
  
• Is fusion the ultimate source of energy that explains why the Sun does shine?
  
• Does gravitation explain why the planets orbit the Sun, the planets' moons orbit their planets?
  
• Does gravitation explain why the sun and other stars orbit the galaxy?
  
• At the scale of solar systems and larger, is gravitation the dominant force in the universe?
  
• Does electromagnetism play any role in explaining the cosmos?

 

Contrary to the parody of cosmology as presented by electric universe crackpots, the answer to the last question is "yes". I'll leave the others up to you.

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

[ajb]

I suppose Tesla was also a crackpot?

 

I don't know if calling Tesla a crackpot is totally fair. But as I have said, he will not be remembered for his contributions to theoretical physics.

[D H]

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

What does this have to do with my post? Don't hijack the thread with off-topic nonsense.

 

To answer your question, was Tesla a crackpot? Almost certainly. Almost all of the great scientists and mathematicians had a tinge, and in many cases, much more than a tinge of crackpot to them. We remember those greats not for their crackpot notions but for the true contributions they made to science.

[StringJunky]

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

 

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.

Edited February 16, 2012 by StringJunky

[rigney]

What does this have to do with my post? Don't hijack the thread with off-topic nonsense.

 

To answer your question, was Tesla a crackpot? Almost certainly. Almost all of the great scientists and mathematicians had a tinge, and in many cases, much more than a tinge of crackpot to them. We remember those greats not for their crackpot notions but for the true contributions they made to science.

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! Edited February 16, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

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

 

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)

 

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!

 

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

[homie12]

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?

[ajb]

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

 

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.

[homie12]

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?

[ajb]

yes but have you tried it? you certainly waste no time in criticizing it.

 

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.

 

 

what book have you read on electricity?

 

I have several at my disposal here in my study.

 

and what actual experimentation have you done yourself?

 

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

[homie12]

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.

[ajb]

but your avatar says you are an expert

 

 

On this forum expert means that I am considered to have a reasonable understanding of physics and that my previous post are of good quality. This does not mean I am always right nor does it mean I know everything.

 

My professional expertise is not in experimental electrodynamics or electronics. I have only a rather standard undergraduate education in these areas.

[swansont]

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.

 

 

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 .

 

 

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

 

Not seeing how that explains how the sun, earth and moon are mutually attracted electromagnetically, which was the point that was raised. The acknowledgement of gravity does not deny the electromagnetic forces exist, so the idea that fluctuations in EM fields can be harnessed is proof of what, exactly?

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

would you like a further explanation?

 

Yes. A file path isn't particularly illuminating.

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

Homie12, you have been asked for some quite simple explanations about how an electromagnetic-gravity system would work for some simple situations say the solar system.

As you are proposing this idea it is your responsibility to show that it is true.

It is time to present your evidence as per the rules of the forum.

Please do not respond to this modnote.

[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

 

 

 

[D H]

Assumptions ...

These are not your words.

 

These words that are not yours do not answer mississippichem's question, nor do they address Klaynos' notice in post #47.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

So let's sum up: plagiarism, that is evidence-free doesn't and address the points raised by others, as requested. So I guess the put-up-or-shut-up choice was shut-up. Thread closed.

Don't reintroduce the subject.