PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-11-29, 03:18:37
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11
Author Topic: Ether - Does it Exist?  (Read 117937 times)

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
 ;D I like this article, and this guy's style.

And this one on the M&M experiment.

Interesting the tricks played to make nature conform to man's ambitions ;)

.99
   
Group: Guest
MileHigh - WHERE did Professor refer to wiki?  Only I referred to wiki.  Are you trying to insinuate that Professor is endorsing articles from the Apeiron journal?  I only saw his reference to published papers. 

Rosemary,

PhysicProf's link is to an Apeiron journal article:

Quote
Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 3, July 2001  19
© 2001 C. Roy Keys Inc.
Einstein’s Ether:
F. Why did Einstein Come
Back to the Ether?

MileHigh
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
UN-DOING MATH, and Einstein's constant.

.99
   
Group: Guest
 ;D
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
An interesting comment on the ether by Feynman while discussion the "parton"; he refers to the ether as "an irrelevant complication..."

From the Book: Selected Papers of Richard Feynman"
 ;)

.99

I think Feynman was right.
   
Group: Guest
I think Feynman was right.

I would love to understand what actually goes on in these forums.  It seems that it's enough for Poynty to post a transcript of an isolated conversation with Feynman - and then some spurious argument by Zwieg - for all to then conclude that any support of aether concepts is wrong.  What intrigues me is this.  Einstein himself did not need that aether.  Not for his General Theory.  But nor was that theory ever proven.  It was his abiding and dying regret.  And the other thing is that Zwicky - the guy who first found out about the need for 'missing matter' - he published at the same time as  - in fact a little before - quantum theories were being forged.  Why did everyone overlook his findings?  My own take is because it simply was not popular.  It would have contradicted both the classical and quantum needs.  In effect - even our Greats eschew the evidence in favour of the 'belief'.  What actually bugs me is that Zwieg claims that Einstein denied his dependence on Lorentz.  Prof assures us he acknowledged this.  And frankly it bothers me then that Zwieg is propagandising.  Nor do I think that his runner messengers is an appropriate analogy.  That was precisely the miracle of Einstein's constant.  It was NOT relative to anything at all.  Only space and time was relative.  Once light 'hit' that vacuum - then regardless of it's 'speed of entry' it defaulted to that cosmological constant.  

In any event.  Beyond this endless debate about whether or not aether exists - is the simple fact that it is MEASURED TO BE THERE.  Something fills the vacuum of space that has, hitherto, be undetectable.  So?  What do we do with that evidence?  Ignore it?  Quote long dead science greats and better still follow in their footsteps becasue they ignored it? May I remind you all.  Dark matter is conclusively evident around our galaxies.  Confusingly - it is also conclusively evident within the vacuum of space itself.  All proved through the use of gravitational lensing.  Conservatively it is measured to constitute a little more than 90% of all the matter in our universe.  This is absolutely KNOWN based on proven evidence.  What's debatable still is the particle that is responsible for all that matter.  And it sure as hell needs to be really, really plentiful. So.  What I'm saying is that the existence of Dark matter is not debatable.  And it seems to have the required property of filling the vacuum of space and that's also not debatable.  What's debatable is whether or not one calls this dark energy or aether which - in my book is immaterial. If it's there it must be doing something to influence the speed of photons that move through it.  And it sure as hell is not frustrating that movement.  If anything it seems to allow those photons to just keep moving.  

Rosemary
  



 
   
Group: Guest
It seems that it's enough for Poynty to post a transcript of an isolated conversation with Feynman - and then some spurious argument by Zwieg - for all to then conclude that any support of aether concepts is wrong.

Not why I posted a smiley. I did so to indicate my delight in seeing another document demonstrating how the math and the model didn't fit reality. Still, it solves.

Feynman was right. It was an irrelevant complication for the boundaries of those physics. Boundaries aren't my thing  ;)   
   
Group: Guest
Not why I posted a smiley. I did so to indicate my delight in seeing another document demonstrating how the math and the model didn't fit reality. Still, it solves.

Feynman was right. It was an irrelevant complication for the boundaries of those physics. Boundaries aren't my thing  ;)   

Nor apparently is logic.  If an electron induces a magnetic field - what is that field?  Wind?  Then how does wind come out of nothing?  In my book that's exactly the same thing as saying energy can be created from nothing.  And I think that even mainstream rather outlaws that argument.  For some reason the assumption is made that the  electromagnetic interaction is a kind of magic.  It's the genii giving Alladin his castles in the air.   It produces it's 'magnetic moment' from nothing?  And yet that moment can fill a lot more space than the electron itself?  Then it kind of 'trails in the wake' of the electron or whatever.  The photon.  Any particle.  And - because that concept - that particular piece of magic is difficult to accept - because it defies logic - then that precisely overqualifies it for being the correct answer?  Because all we're actually trying to do is pretend that the Emperor is wearing anything at all?  (LOL.  That's got to be the most confusing series of mixed metaphors ever strung together.  LOL.  At least it's given me a laugh)   

In any event.  Quantum mechanics simply got out of the argument.  They claimed that there was too much that could never be known.  By the same token classicists climbed out of the argument by saying that they could do without the field.  And not surprisingly neither side accept the implications of all that dark energy.  They're really busy trying to ignore it.  That Caltech team are having a hard time of it trying to get their colleagues to sit up and pay any attention at all. And none of them actually have any answers for us.  Or.  There are no answers that actually make any sense.  The real joke is that you all take these partial explanations are absolute.  Not even they do.  None of them.  Yet they've got this almost religious following of fanatics that quote them all over the place as if they actually do have answers.  LOL.  And then you justify all this indifference by misquoting them or by pointing at spurious argument - or by claiming adherence to the philosophies of those really bad philosophers.  And so it goes.  We're doomed as a species when so much ego gets in the way of common sense.     
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

I suggest that you try following this link:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C2CEECFD938FD494

Get through all of the material in the above link and then you will be in a better position to discuss this stuff.

MileHigh
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1443
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Aether...
It's not just for breakfast anymore.
Look at this way. During resonation there is an applied pressure to the atomic fields that stresses the natural, magnetic, electrostatic balance. Its like compressing gas to get fluid and then releasing the pressure. We simply connect with the fluidic pressure, the fluctuating space between the spaces. It is there because we made it. We use harmony to create harmony. If it doesn't move we don't see it. Yet. One day there will be a set of tools to measure or see it at its static presence. But for now we have to rock and roll it. :o


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

I suggest that you try following this link:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C2CEECFD938FD494

Get through all of the material in the above link and then you will be in a better position to discuss this stuff.

MileHigh

MileHigh - exactly WHAT is in those lectures that I don't already know? Except obviously that it lacks any kind of explanation for the field itself.  If I didn't know better I'd think you're trying to educate me on mainstream confusions.  But as you know, I'm well aware of them.  I keep pointing them out.  I don't need even more excuse to do so.  It's you who need to look at those lectures and just keep looking.  That way you'll never have to question anything at all - least of all the basis of all that confusion.  LOL

What you actually need to do is find that link that explains dark energy.  Then I'll look at that series of videos with great interest.  The question is whether you will.  I don't think you dare.

Didn't we have an agreement to ignore each other?  Or was I just being hopeful?  The trick is when you see the name 'aetherevarising' - then just move along.  Don't read it.  I'm of the opinion that you're that rigid that NOTHING will ever intrude on your sense of sureness.  Like the Inquisition before you MileHigh - it only thrives on opinion - and the systematic abuse of anyone having an alternate opinion.  And frankly I'm tired of all that abuse. And all that opinion.  I think the time is long overdue when we actually just start asking a few simple questions.  Much more wholesome.  But absolutely NOT for the faint hearted.  NOT For your average intellectual coward.  

Rosemary

ADDED
   
Group: Guest
Aether...
It's not just for breakfast anymore.
Look at this way. During resonation there is an applied pressure to the atomic fields that stresses the natural, magnetic, electrostatic balance. Its like compressing gas to get fluid and then releasing the pressure. We simply connect with the fluidic pressure, the fluctuating space between the spaces. It is there because we made it. We use harmony to create harmony. If it doesn't move we don't see it. Yet. One day there will be a set of tools to measure or see it at its static presence. But for now we have to rock and roll it. :o

Giantkiller:

I put some real effort into this thread so I will comment on what you said.  The first thing that comes to mind you also should look at that link that I just posted.  Of course there is a lot of material there so perhaps you could try to digest it in small chunks.  The point is that it's the real thing.  What you are saying above doesn't really make any sense.  It's all very cool and New Age sounding but when you really dissect what you say above, there is nothing there.  I am sorry if I am offending you but this is a serious issue.  The more you learn the better off you will be.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Giantkiller:

I put some real effort into this thread so I will comment on what you said.  The first thing that comes to mind you also should look at that link that I just posted.  Of course there is a lot of material there so perhaps you could try to digest it in small chunks.  The point is that it's the real thing.  What you are saying above doesn't really make any sense.  It's all very cool and New Age sounding but when you really dissect what you say above, there is nothing there.  I am sorry if I am offending you but this is a serious issue.  The more you learn the better off you will be.

MileHigh

I  seem to recall you saying that you're 'out of steam' or some such in arguing the aether.  Pointing to mainstream opinion doens't cut it.  You'd need to ignore the extraordinary measurements taken by Ellis et al that proves the existence of SOMETHING - whatever it is - that FILLS ALL OF SPACE?  Do you just ignore this?  Because like Al Gore's argument  it's an 'inconvenient truth'?

Quite apart from which - you're very quick to advise us all on what to read.  Don't you think you should get up to speed here yourself MileHigh?  And if all this effort that you've put into this thread is centred on finding mainstream links - then don't bother.  We've got whole LIBRARIES all over the world that - right now need to be re-written.  And that's not my opinion.  I'm loosely quoting Kaku.  So.  Showing us how much is written does not thereby prove that all that theory is even half way right.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
MileHigh - exactly WHAT is in those lectures that I don't already know? Except obviously that it lacks any kind of explanation for the field itself.  If I didn't know better I'd think you're trying to educate me on mainstream confusions.  But as you know, I'm well aware of them.  I keep pointing them out.  I don't need even more excuse to do so.  It's you who need to look at those lectures and just keep looking.  That way you'll never have to question anything at all - least of all the basis of all that confusion.  LOL

What you actually need to do is find that link that explains dark energy.  Then I'll look at that series of videos with great interest.  The question is whether you will.  I don't think you dare.

Didn't we have an agreement to ignore each other?  Or was I just being hopeful?  The trick is when you see the name 'aetherevarising' - then just move along.  Don't read it.  I'm of the opinion that you're that rigid that NOTHING will ever intrude on your sense of sureness.  Like the Inquisition before you MileHigh - it only thrives on opinion - and the systematic abuse of anyone having an alternate opinion.  And frankly I'm tired of all that abuse. And all that opinion.  I think the time is long overdue when we actually just start asking a few simple questions.  Much more wholesome.  But absolutely NOT for the faint hearted.  NOT For your average intellectual coward.  

Rosemary

ADDED

Rosemary:

You barely know any of the material in those lectures.  So I suggest that you also look at them slowly in manageable chunks.  They should be very helpful for you.  Before you start branching off with new ideas, you are supposed to at least try to have a mastery of or at least an understanding of electromagnetics in general.  That's normally how things work in both the arts and the sciences.  It's up to you, I'm not twisting your arm.  It would be wise on your part to bookmark the link.

I would be more than happy to read up more on Dark Energy and Dark Matter one day.  I can tell you for sure it has absolutely nothing to do with your MOSFET-inductive resistor experiment.

Here's a few tasty tidbits, it really is a fascinating subject:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/dark-matter-mystery.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/massey-dark-matter.html

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

You barely know any of the material in those lectures.  So I suggest that you also look at them slowly in manageable chunks.  They should be very helpful for you.  Before you start branching off with new ideas, you are supposed to at least try to have a mastery of or at least an understanding of electromagnetics in general.  That's normally how things work in both the arts and the sciences.  It's up to you, I'm not twisting your arm.  It would be wise on your part to bookmark the link.
I assure you that I understand everything in those links other than the equations to express the concept. But since he started off suggesting he was going to deal with the concepts and since I absolutely DO understand those concepts - then I do also understand his arguments.  I just don't buy in - is all.  His opening lecture points to the proton and electron in your average hydrogen atom and then concludes that there's nothing between the two of them except (by implication)that attractive force.  If that was all that was between them then WHAT then stops the electron nose-diving into the proton - is just the FIRST question?  Do you know the answer MileHigh?  If you do you must tell us all. There's no consistent explanation for this fact is mainstream.  The best they can suggest is that the quark in the proton may repel the electron.  But that only explains repulsion when the two particles are considerably closer together then they actually are.  So you see MileHigh - MAINSTREAM DO NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.

Rosemary

Modified - all over the place.
   
Group: Guest
Nor apparently is logic.  If an electron induces a magnetic field - what is that field?  Wind? 

Huh?

A proof for a model that doesn't fit reality means the proof is useless.

Logic?

Wind?

I think I'll check out of this hospital for a while.

The answers to your questions are found at the MIT links provided by MH. Whether or not the information is correct is something you may decide after you understand it well enough to prove or disprove it.

I need to leave now. I don't think I have ever backed MIT for anything.


   
Group: Guest
One of the easiest to digest docos on the subject is:

"Through the Worm Hole" with Morgan Freeman

Very up to date... released 2010

Milehigh check out the last episode, guy doing research in Hawaii. Will help you relate to these free energy thinkers.

Ozy
   
Group: Guest
His opening lecture points to the proton and electron in your average hydrogen atom and then concludes that there's nothing between the two of them except (by implication)that attractive force.  If that was all that was between them then WHAT then stops the electron nose-diving into the proton - is just the FIRST question?  Do you know the answer MileHigh?

Rosemary

I'm just going to give you a simple answer.  Take a look at the example of the Earth in orbit around the sun or a satellite in orbit around the moon where there is no atmosphere. Let's focus on the satellite in orbit around the moon.

Assume the satellite is in a nice circular orbit 10,000 kilometers above the surface of the moon.  There is no friction so it will remain in orbit forever.  So if you could go up to the satellite and give it a nudge, you would change the orbit and it would go from a circular to an elliptical orbit but it would still orbit forever.  You could try to nudge it over and over and over and it would still remain in orbit in some orbital path or other.

In theory you could make the orbit get so eccentric that it would crash into the surface of the moon.  However, let's continue on our intellectual journey and reduce the size of the moon to a basketball, but still having the same mass and the same gravity field.  Now you can try nudging that satellite almost forever, and you will never be able to stop it from orbiting the basketball-sized moon.  The satellite will never ever hit the moon, it will always swing by the moon and remain in orbit.

That's what an electron looks like in orbit around a nucleus.  It's in a vacuum, a frictionless environment, and nothing can "knock" it so that it hits the nucleus.  The height of the satellite above the moon or the orbital shell an electron is in represents an "energy state."  In a vacuum there are no forces to stop the satellite or electron from happily orbiting at its given energy state.

So, you say that you don't need to look at the MIT lectures on electromagnetics, yet you can't fathom how an electron remains in orbit around a nucleus.  In the lecture series the properties of an electron in orbit around a hydrogen nucleus are discussed in detail, and they go through the calculations to determine the electron's equivalent linear speed and equivalent current.  It's fascinating because the equivalent linear speed is something like 2/3 of 'c' (If I recall correctly) and the equivalent current it represents is almost one milliampere.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
I'm just going to give you a simple answer.  Take a look at the example of the Earth in orbit around the sun or a satellite in orbit around the moon where there is no atmosphere. Let's focus on the satellite in orbit around the moon.

Assume the satellite is in a nice circular orbit 10,000 kilometers above the surface of the moon.  There is no friction so it will remain in orbit forever.  So if you could go up to the satellite and give it a nudge, you would change the orbit and it would go from a circular to an elliptical orbit but it would still orbit forever.  You could try to nudge it over and over and over and it would still remain in orbit in some orbital path or other.

In theory you could make the orbit get so eccentric that it would crash into the surface of the moon.  However, let's continue on our intellectual journey and reduce the size of the moon to a basketball, but still having the same mass and the same gravity field.  Now you can try nudging that satellite almost forever, and you will never be able to stop it from orbiting the basketball-sized moon.  The satellite will never ever hit the moon, it will always swing by the moon and remain in orbit.

That's what an electron looks like in orbit around a nucleus.  It's in a vacuum, a frictionless environment, and nothing can "knock" it so that it hits the nucleus.  The height of the satellite above the moon or the orbital shell an electron is in represents an "energy state."  In a vacuum there are no forces to stop the satellite or electron from happily orbiting at its given energy state.

So, you say that you don't need to look at the MIT lectures on electromagnetics, yet you can't fathom how an electron remains in orbit around a nucleus.  In the lecture series the properties of an electron in orbit around a hydrogen nucleus are discussed in detail, and they go through the calculations to determine the electron's equivalent linear speed and equivalent current.  It's fascinating because the equivalent linear speed is something like 2/3 of 'c' (If I recall correctly) and the equivalent current it represents is almost one milliampere.

MileHigh

Well then.  Here's the thing.  If the moon had a negative charge and the earth had a positive charge then - as and when push came to shove - that moon would DEFINITELY nosedive into that earth.  No question.  The only question is why do two particles not nosedive into each other in the atomic structure?  Out of the atomic structure they behave very predictably.  The only physicist I've seen prepared to even ASK the question is Zukov.  The assumption is that gravity explains that gross orbit.  Makes good sense.  But particles DO NOT RESPOND to a gravity field.  They ONLY respond to a charge.

This is the kind of fatuous analogy that mainstream rely on to explain things.  And - in point of fact it explains nothing.  Why are they all so scared of simply acknowledging that they don't have the answers.  It's sad really.  All that ego. Nothing wrong is saying 'actually it's not clear'.  Or 'actually I don't know'.  Then they would not confuse the likes of you MileHigh - by leading you by the nose - pretending that they have all the answers.  They don't.   They quite simply haven't even managed to answer some really, really basic questions.  But they're safe.  Just as long as uncritical - unthinking - people like you subscribe to whatever it is that they want you to think or believe.  I think they realise that most of their admirers would never bother to actually pose a sensible question.  Ever.  That would require a certain amount of original thought.  And there's not too much of that going around here.
« Last Edit: 2011-01-02, 09:56:17 by aetherevarising »
   
Group: Guest
Huh?

A proof for a model that doesn't fit reality means the proof is useless.
WaveWatcher - what are you saying?  If there's proof of anything at all then it will ALWAYS fit reality.  That's the definition of proof.  And if that point strikes you as mad - then exactly how mad is it to assume that an electron manufactures a magnetic field out of nothing?  Because that's what mainstream is saying - or what Maxwell and Einstein said.  The claim is that the electron itself has material properties.  Also.  The electron can induce immaterial magnetic properties as a consequence of its movement through space.  These immaterial magnetic properties have physical dimensions in space as they are are measurable.  Yet somehow they are still, and nonetheless - immaterial.  They do not belong to the material property of the electron.  They just manifest.  Somehow.  Every time an electron moves.  They do not effect the mass of the electron.  They do not effect the charge of the electron.  They just come.  Out of nothing.  And they've got a distinct boundary and it's measurable.  Yet it's absolutely nothing.   Tell me more about this logic!  Personally I'm defeated.  

Rosemary

   
Group: Guest
Well then.  Here's the thing.  If the moon had a negative charge and the earth had a positive charge then - as and when push came to shove - that moon would DEFINITELY nosedive into that earth.  No question.  The only question is why do two particles not nosedive into each other in the atomic structure?  Out of the atomic structure they behave very predictably.  The only physicist I've seen prepared to even ASK the question is Zukov.  The assumption is that gravity explains that gross orbit.  Makes good sense.  But particles DO NOT RESPOND to a gravity field.  They ONLY respond to a charge.

This is the kind of fatuous analogy that mainstream rely on to explain things.  And - in point of fact it explains nothing.  Why are they all so scared of simply acknowledging that they don't have the answers.  It's sad really.  All that ego. Nothing wrong is saying 'actually it's not clear'.  Or 'actually I don't know'.  Then they would not confuse the likes of you MileHigh - by leading you by the nose - pretending that they have all the answers.  They don't.   They quite simply haven't even managed to answer some really, really basic questions.  But they're safe.  Just as long as uncritical - unthinking - people like you subscribe to whatever it is that they want you to think or believe.  I think they realise that most of their admirers would never bother to actually pose a sensible question.  Ever.  That would require a certain amount of original thought.  And there's not too much of that going around here.

I suggest that you watch the MIT clips.  For the electron in orbit around the nucleus you substitute gravitational attraction for electrical attraction. In fact there is still some gravitational attraction at play also, but only a very tiny amount.  Your comments about me being "unthinking" or your bashing of mainstream science are just sour grapes.  Sometimes you discover that you don't know what you don't know Rosemary, it happens to everybody.  Nor do I claim to be an expert in atomic structure or orbital mechanics.  I am just applying my common sense and drawing from stuff from my background that's pretty foggy at this point in time.  However, for the most part, if I was to review the material I can relearn it again and understand the derivations and follow along.  The MIT clips are great and I was able to follow the derivations for the electron spinning around the nucleus in a hydrogen atom.

Quote
If the moon had a negative charge and the earth had a positive charge then - as and when push came to shove - that moon would DEFINITELY nosedive into that earth.

There is no force at play to reduce the moon's orbital energy such that it would crash into the Earth.  There is already gravitational attraction between the two bodies so what difference would it make if you added some electrical attraction?  I think that you are just making a blind assumption and are convinced that you are right.  If you think that you are right then tell me exactly why the moon would crash into the Earth.

The analogy that I gave you was perfectly decent.  Electrons orbit around nuclei because they are at a given energy state that keeps them in orbit, just like the moon is in an energy state that keeps it in orbit around the Earth.  If you don't think these statements are valid then lay out a logical argument to back up your claims.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
I suggest that you watch the MIT clips.  For the electron in orbit around the nucleus you substitute gravitational attraction for electrical attraction. In fact there is still some gravitational attraction at play also, but only a very tiny amount.
I have watched those clips MileHigh.  I've watched them more than once.  And.  No MileHigh.  There is NO GRAVITY AT ALL can influence a particle.  The smallest thing that responds to gravity is the atom.  Particles are immune.  They only respond to charge.  And for some UNKNOWN reason - that response is ENTIRELY EXEMPT within the atomic structure.  Suddenly - for UNKNOWN reasons, the electron doesn't respond predictably to the proton's charge.  Nor is there an explanation.

Your comments about me being "unthinking" or your bashing of mainstream science are just sour grapes.
Sour grapes.  LOL.  Are you suggesting I'd prefer physics if I looked at is as you do?  Or as mainstream does?  They and you wear blinkers and you both select your evidence carefully. MileHigh.  The genius of science and scientists is that extraordinary ability to measure.  But when it comes to explaining the properties of what is invisible - it ERRS.  Big time.  Because anything used to describe this depends on speculation and deduction.  And our scientists are talented.  But they're not even trained in logic.

Sometimes you discover that you don't know what you don't know Rosemary, it happens to everybody.
That's a strange use of the word discovery.  I suppose it fits.  I just wish mainstream could share that discovery with me. LOL.  I made that discovery long ago.  And I never tire of referencing it.  Unfortunately all that reference has allowed you to assume that you know so much more whereas your own discovery here - lurks around the corner MileHigh.  Hopefully, as Professor has already mentioned - you'll make this your own discovery during the course of this year.  It would be nice.

Nor do I claim to be an expert in atomic structure or orbital mechanics.  I am just applying my common sense and drawing from stuff from my background that's pretty foggy at this point in time.  However, for the most part, if I was to review the material I can relearn it again and understand the derivations and follow along.  The MIT clips are great and I was able to follow the derivations for the electron spinning around the nucleus in a hydrogen atom.
Well.  Bully for you.  I could follow it too - provided I suspended my faculties of reason.  You don't seem to share this reluctance.

There is no force at play to reduce the moon's orbital energy such that it would crash into the Earth.  There is already gravitational attraction between the two bodies so what difference would it make if you added some electrical attraction?  I think that you are just making a blind assumption and are convinced that you are right.  If you think that you are right then tell me exactly why the moon would crash into the Earth.
You actually need this explained?  Let me start with this.  If the moon was predominantly negative, say and the earth was predominantly positive - say - then they would both be predominantly monopolar.  OUTSIDE of an atomic structure particles interact.  Like charges repel.  Unlike charges attract.  Therefore if the moon was negative and the earth was positive there would be an attraction between the two bodies.  Such 'charged' attraction would induce both bodies to move towards each other at an angle of 180 degrees.  They'd make a beeline for each other.  They'd connnect.  That's according to the know Laws of Charge.  Not sure why you assume that either 'charged' bodies would continue to orbit as it's highly unlikely. 

The analogy that I gave you was perfectly decent.  Electrons orbit around nuclei because they are at a given energy state that keeps them in orbit, just like the moon is in an energy state that keeps it in orbit around the Earth.  If you don't think these statements are valid then lay out a logical argument to back up your claims.
Then I must refer you to that link that you clearly can't understand and that you have stated is 'wild' or 'fanciful'.  I forget which.  Probably both.  So that's a non-starter. 

Rosemary

   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 275
Hi,
 A thought experiment.
 If matter (atomic level) has a repelling force based on inverse cube ruling, and opposing charges has an attractive force based on inverse square ruling, we would never see a 'collision' would we. I don't generally follow all of this but have not seen anything remotely suggesting this.
As for dark matter, that requires leaving for now. Why try to run when you can't walk?
 The spanner is thrown.
steve.
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

Quote
There is NO GRAVITY AT ALL can influence a particle.

A proton has mass.  An electron has mass.  Have you ever heard of the universal law of gravitation?  I don't know how you "invent" this "world view" in your head Rosemary but it is really strange sometimes.

Quote
You actually need this explained?  Let me start with this.  If the moon was predominantly negative, say and the earth was predominantly positive - say - then they would both be predominantly monopolar.  OUTSIDE of an atomic structure particles interact.  Like charges repel.  Unlike charges attract.  Therefore if the moon was negative and the earth was positive there would be an attraction between the two bodies.  Such 'charged' attraction would induce both bodies to move towards each other at an angle of 180 degrees.  They'd make a beeline for each other.  They'd connnect.  That's according to the know Laws of Charge.  Not sure why you assume that either 'charged' bodies would continue to orbit as it's highly unlikely.

No they would not connect just because you say so.  You have to have an unbalanced force to remove the orbital energy from the moon so that it could crash into the Earth and there is none.  Therefore the moon would continue to orbit around the Earth.   What "known laws of charge" are you talking about and how do they explain your premise?  You are clearly unable to answer the question with a rational explanation.

You need to learn some basic physics also Rosemary.  I am just pointing out how often you are out of your element.  You can continue to rant about how science doesn't know this and science doesn't know that.  Nobody says that science knows everything for sure.  But you continuously make it clear that you go out on a limb and make grand pronouncements without really having the knowledge to back them up.  It's just an observation.

MileHigh
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1443
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Keeping it simple...
More harmonious and less cacophony...
http://wbabin.net/ntham/davis.pdf

Looks like the only tool needed is resonance.

And I do respect Walter Lewin. Been watching him for years.


---------------------------
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-11-29, 03:18:37