electric gravity

gravity electric

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: electric gravity

#41  Postby electricgravity1 » Nov 05, 2016 11:27 pm

newolder wrote:Not a Cavendish test but, nevertheless at test for G variation on the Sun gives:
Helioseismology, the analysis of acoustic waves of the sun, has become an interesting area of research. Relevant for gravitation are the constraints on a possible variation of G which reach G ̇/G < 10−12yr−1


It strikes me immediately that this is not a physics experiment. Its observational heliology. A load of assumptions without the ability to control the subject or its environment. It has nothing like the validity of a physics experiment. They really should have sent a Cavendish experiment to the moon.

Nice link, good summary of gravity, and to me it just looks like a big mess based on the great wild assumption that big G measured on Earth is the same everywhere in the universe, and that gravity is independent of other forces.
User avatar
electricgravity1
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: henry
Posts: 48

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#42  Postby newolder » Nov 05, 2016 11:37 pm

electricgravity1 wrote:
newolder wrote:Not a Cavendish test but, nevertheless at test for G variation on the Sun gives:
Helioseismology, the analysis of acoustic waves of the sun, has become an interesting area of research. Relevant for gravitation are the constraints on a possible variation of G which reach G ̇/G < 10−12yr−1


It strikes me immediately that this is not a physics experiment. Its observational heliology. A load of assumptions without the ability to control the subject or its environment. It has nothing like the validity of a physics experiment. They really should have sent a Cavendish experiment to the moon.

Nice link, good summary of gravity, and to me it just looks like a big mess based on the great wild assumption that big G measured on Earth is the same everywhere in the universe, and that gravity is independent of other forces.

Your personal incredulity is irrelevant.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7876
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#43  Postby Weaver » Nov 06, 2016 2:03 am

No. I am saying it is so absurdly, ludicrously wrong - that the cause of gravity is well known and has jack shit to do with static electricity.

It is pseudoscientific to the core.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 54
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#44  Postby Oldskeptic » Nov 06, 2016 2:50 am

This electrostatic gravity hypothesis must account for formation of stars in the early universe, stable spiral galaxies, and black holes. It can't.

The law of conservation of electric charge rules out the early formation of stars in the early universe and black holes. That dark matter does not interact with electromagnetic energy rules out stable spiral galaxies because we would be able to observe it directly.

For a new hypothesis to become successful theory it must account for all past observations that support the theory it would supplant. That and more. This proposed hypothesis of electrostatic gravity does not come close to that.

I'm pretty sure that a variant Galileo's experiment with falling bodies also rules out this hypothesis. A single feather or a wool sock could be expected to fall as fast as an iron ball. That does not happen.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 65
Male

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#45  Postby electricgravity1 » Nov 06, 2016 9:59 am

newolder wrote:Your personal incredulity is irrelevant.


Don't like the peer review system huh, go tell that to the top universities. Anyway, try to criticise the substance of what I said, instead of just saying opinions don't count.

Weaver wrote:the cause of gravity is well known

Please state the well known cause of gravity

No. I am saying it is so absurdly, ludicrously wrong....has jack shit to do....
It is pseudoscientific to the core.

Scientists don't need superlatives or hyperbole, if a theory is wrong then its wrong, thats all.
Its obvious why you feel the need to resort to them often. Because they are a substitute for something you don't have - a reasonable argument.

Also you've contradicted yourself. First you were saying the electric gravity theory wasn't wrong, no you are saying its wrong. Get your story straight before posting please.
Weaver wrote:Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"


Oldskeptic wrote:This electrostatic gravity hypothesis must account for formation of stars in the early universe, stable spiral galaxies, and black holes. It can't.

The law of conservation of electric charge rules out the early formation of stars in the early universe and black holes. That dark matter does not interact with electromagnetic energy rules out stable spiral galaxies because we would be able to observe it directly.

Well don't bother with me then. Go tell that to the conventional theorists all over the worlds top universities. They use conservation of electric charge too, for them too, the universe has a net charge of zero. Pester them for years. Start a blog detailing your efforts. Link to it here.

For a new hypothesis to become successful theory it must account for all past observations that support the theory it would supplant. That and more. This proposed hypothesis of electrostatic gravity does not come close to that.


You seem to be taking the aloof position that electrostatic gravity has been tested and worked on for like 50 years. Do you have book and papers on the shelf next to "50 years of string theory", "60 years of dark matter theory", " 100 years of GR theory ", " 120 years of electric gravity theory ". Because as far as I'm aware electric gravity has not ever been considered by the mainstream.
Either that or perhaps you have been influenced by Weaver who is comfortable in the middle of the pyramid of reason, with flat contradiction. It's a very cushy place I'm sure. How old were your children when they learnt to say "yes" and "no"? Typically no older than 2, perhaps 18 months. That is a measure for the mental age required for flat contradiction.
I think the truth is there are no papers that show electrostatic gravity is incompatible with observations. If there was, you would link to them.

I'm pretty sure that a variant Galileo's experiment with falling bodies also rules out this hypothesis. A single feather or a wool sock could be expected to fall as fast as an iron ball. That does not happen.


Thanx, here we get a clear picture of where you are with your physics understanding. You are unaware of :

1. Feathers are known to fall at the same rate as cannon balls under only gravity.
2. On Earth, air resistance stops feathers falling as fast as cannon balls
3. feather vs cannon ball falls would not discern electric gravity from non electric gravity.

You wouldn't pass your highschool science for lack of understanding of those 1st 2 errors. With your current grasp of physics, you are not in a position to judge the validity of any science theory.
User avatar
electricgravity1
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: henry
Posts: 48

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#46  Postby BlackBart » Nov 06, 2016 10:11 am

Obviously, we have gravity because God rubbed the Earth on his sweater. How do we know God did that? Because we have gravity!!!!11!!

Scienz. It works, biotchez! :teef:
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Name: rotten bart
Posts: 12607
Age: 59
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#47  Postby newolder » Nov 06, 2016 10:42 am

electricgravity1 wrote:
newolder wrote:Your personal incredulity is irrelevant.


Don't like the peer review system huh, go tell that to the top universities. Anyway, try to criticise the substance of what I said, instead of just saying opinions don't count.

There is no substance to criticise.

These experimental tests* of General Relativity theory show G has varied by less than 1% over the 13-odd billion years since the bang.

*Specifically on page 23.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7876
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#48  Postby Calilasseia » Nov 06, 2016 11:19 am

electricgravity1 wrote:
Blackadder wrote:Venus has no magnetic field. But it has gravity. Hope that helps.


It would be more helpful in the discussion of " Is gravity caused by magnetism? "
But this is a " Is gravity caused by electro-static " discussion.

No magnetism means there is no net circulating general electric current in venus. Venus does however have an electric field, so this supports the electric gravity theory.


Arcanyn wrote:The Earth is round. Tomatoes are also round. Could the Earth actually be a giant tomato?


I understand the point u are attempting to make. The Earth fails on other tomato criteria, e.g. - it doesn't grow on a tomato plant - so its not a tomato.
Now lets see if you can find a failing criteria for why gravity can't be electric.

10 replies so far, and none have been able to criticise the electric gravity theory, they are all down in the bottom 4 ranks of the pyramid of reason. Even if u could get to rank 3, that would be the best reply so far.

Image


Oh you want an explicit refutation of your canards, do you?

Try this.

The electrostatic force is a vector force, involving tensors of rank 1. Gravity is a higher-rank tensor force, involving tensors of rank 2. Tensors of different rank cannot ever be identical to each other. The terms for electric and magnetic fields in Maxwell's Equations are rank 1 tensors with N1 = N components in an N-dimensional space. The term for gravity in Einstein's Field Equations is a rank 2 tensor with N2 components in an N-dimensional space. The idea that these terms represent identical quantities is a non-starter to those of us who paid attention in mathematics classes. Apart from the fact that your suggestion violates the laws of tensor algebra, which on its own is a serious issue, it also violates what is known about these forces from actual empirical data. Such as:

[1] The electric force involves particles with two charges, whilst gravity involves uncharged particles with mass.

[2] The electric force is over 30 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

[3] The physicist Patrick Blackett conducted explicit experiments in the 1950s aimed at linking gravity and electromagnetism, and on the basis of the failure of those experiments, abandoned the idea.

[4] Electromagnetism does not alter the geometry of spacetime. Gravity does, and this effect is not only measurable, but accounted for in the positioning of GPS satellites. Given the vastly larger magnitude of the electromagnetic force, any spacetime curvature effects it might have exerted would have been observable not only with modern technology, but would have been visible to our Palaeolithic ancestors, because that effect would also have been 30 orders of magnitude larger.

[5] Electrons can be readily manipulated in a high school physics laboratory. The graviton still awaits explicit discovery, despite us having built enormous particle accelerators aimed at searching for this and related particles. Though thanks to quantum field theory, we can predict in advance the properties it will have, should it ever make its presence felt in a particle accelerator - namely, zero electric charge, zero mass and spin 2. Furthermore, the same quantum field theory tells us that only one spin-2 elementary particle can exist, therefore the moment a spin-2 particle materialises in a particle accelerator, this will be sufficient to count as evidence for the graviton.

Do come back when you've spent 20 years learning about all of the above in detail.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22250
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#49  Postby electricgravity1 » Nov 06, 2016 11:22 am

newolder wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:
newolder wrote:Your personal incredulity is irrelevant.


Don't like the peer review system huh, go tell that to the top universities. Anyway, try to criticise the substance of what I said, instead of just saying opinions don't count.

There is no substance to criticise.


here
electricgravity1 wrote:It strikes me immediately that this is not a physics experiment. Its observational heliology. A load of assumptions without the ability to control the subject or its environment. It has nothing like the validity of a physics experiment.


If you don't see this as substantial it implies the lack of distinction between physics experiments and remote observation. They are different, and must not be confounded. The former is a far stronger test than the latter. The former sets all conditions, while the latter assumes many conditions.



These experimental tests* of General Relativity theory show G has varied by less than 1% over the 13-odd billion years since the bang.

*Specifically on page 23.


They reflected a laser off a mirror on the moon and looked for frequency shift. They assumed G was a universal constant, and this experiment would not test that assumption, instead it was supposed to test variation of a universal big G.

The assumption that big G is a universal constant has never been tested.
User avatar
electricgravity1
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: henry
Posts: 48

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#50  Postby newolder » Nov 06, 2016 11:28 am

electricgravity1 wrote:...

The assumption that big G is a universal constant has never been tested.

If G were different at the Earth, Moon and Saturn, for example, then the Apollo and Cassini mission calculations would fail. They didn’t/don’t. Come back when you have something substantial (a calculation) to contribute.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7876
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#51  Postby electricgravity1 » Nov 06, 2016 12:12 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Oh you want an explicit refutation of your canards, do you?
Try this.

Give me your best shot.

The electrostatic force is a vector force, involving tensors of rank 1. Gravity is a higher-rank tensor force, involving tensors of rank 2. Tensors of different rank cannot ever be identical to each other.


GR assumes gravity is a rank 2 tensor, and created a great mathematical muddle that has yielded no useful or results in over 100 years. It also assumes G is a universal constant, without decent supporting evidence. GR is wide open to having one of its premises shown to be wrong, if we ever do a Cavendish off Earth - hence the reluctance of the sceince community to do an off Earth Canvendish - it would kill one of their sacred cash cows.

Electromagnetism - i.e. the complete version of electric theory, is a rank 2 tensor, so actually fits in with your requirement of tensor ranks being equal. Yet you don't mention this?
Not that it matters because GR is rubbish.

Apart from the fact that your suggestion violates the laws of tensor algebra, which on its own is a serious issue, it also violates what is known about these forces from actual empirical data. Such as:

[1] The electric force involves particles with two charges, whilst gravity involves uncharged particles with mass.


I've already explained this somewhat in a prior post. Electro-static systems will tend to approximate unipolar systems as much as possible before they exhibit bipolar behaviour.

electricgravity1 wrote:
Wrt neutral objects attraction to charged objects:
Have you ever held a electrically neutral object near a charged object? What do you see happen?

Wrt to similarly charged objects,
Neutral objects are attracted to charged objects. This is due to a dielectric effect. The same is also true for very slightly similarly charged objects, because within like charged object, there is still plenty of dielectric effect. However if the like charges are strong enough, then objects will repel.
We never see stuff that is repelled from Earth's surface by the electric field of Earth. Therefore electric gravity asserts :
- The dielectric capacity of Earth overwhelms the like-charge repulsion of all small objects near Earth.
- Objects that becomes highly similarly charged to Earth will break any insulation between the Earth and itself before it overwhelms the dielectric attraction to the Earth.
- Highly charged objects that cannot discharge to Earth will 1st overwhelm their own molecular stabilty before they overwhelm Earth's dielectric capacity. i.e. the inter ionic repulsion of a positively charged object will explode an object before it overwhelms the Earth's ability to attract it via dielectric attraction.

This goes for all celestial bodies. Only on small comets and asteroids might it be possible to get electricgravity repulsion for a large object. Of course, electric repulsion from surfaces of celestial bodies for dust and molecules is standard.


[2] The electric force is over 30 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

42 orders : but only for atomic scale systems. Actually, if you do the maths for macro systems it comes out as 21 orders of magnitude difference, but most electric systems have roughly zero net charge. Therefore any residual electrostatic force is expected to be many orders of magnitude less than a system consisting only of like charges. The strength of gravity is within this expectation.


[3] The physicist Patrick Blackett conducted explicit experiments in the 1950s aimed at linking gravity and electromagnetism, and on the basis of the failure of those experiments, abandoned the idea.


Coincidentally Einstein was said to be doing the same thing in the 1940s-50s, and also failing. They were approaching the problem via GR, which I think is rubbish. They should have abandoned GR and just said gravity is electrostatic.


[4] Electromagnetism does not alter the geometry of spacetime. Gravity does, and this effect is not only measurable, but accounted for in the positioning of GPS satellites.

They tried to measure GR effects with gravity probe B. They failed, the results were inconclusive. Results that suggest relativistic effects were attributable to special relativity. GR was not needed. It has never been shown that space-time 'warps'.

Given the vastly larger magnitude of the electromagnetic force, any spacetime curvature effects it might have exerted would have been observable not only with modern technology, but would have been visible to our Palaeolithic ancestors, because that effect would also have been 30 orders of magnitude larger.

Same wrong assumption as above.


[5] Electrons can be readily manipulated in a high school physics laboratory. The graviton still awaits explicit discovery, despite us having built enormous particle accelerators aimed at searching for this and related particles. Though thanks to quantum field theory, we can predict in advance the properties it will have, should it ever make its presence felt in a particle accelerator - namely, zero electric charge, zero mass and spin 2. Furthermore, the same quantum field theory tells us that only one spin-2 elementary particle can exist, therefore the moment a spin-2 particle materialises in a particle accelerator, this will be sufficient to count as evidence for the graviton.

So we abandon something we know exists and is highly interactive and is the basis of all observable matter; without trial, for something never shown to exist despite $billions, decades, and millions of the best man hours put in - in the biggest physics project ever undertaken. And that's supposed to be a strong argument?
I'd submit your writing to show the so-called natural philosophy community has not been so deluded since it was run by theologists.


Do come back when you've spent 20 years learning about all of the above in detail.

I'm back. I reckon I've learnt more about physics than you ever will!
Last edited by electricgravity1 on Nov 06, 2016 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
electricgravity1
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: henry
Posts: 48

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#52  Postby newolder » Nov 06, 2016 12:32 pm

electricgravity1 wrote:...It has never been shown that space-time 'warps'.

From Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse observations to present day communications between orbiting satellites and GPS devices on Earth, every experiment shows space-time warps.
ESA source

ESA's Hipparcos satellite (1989-93) provided the emphatic confirmation of Einstein's prediction. Hipparcos charted the positions of stars so accurately that no eclipse was needed to see the effect of the Sun's gravity.

Where previous observations of the shifts had been confined to objects seen within a degree or two of the edge of the Sun, where the effect is strongest, the European satellite sensed the bending of light rays even from stars in the night sky, at right angles to the Sun. According to the Hipparcos scientists, Einstein's prediction is correct to within one part in a thousand.


Confirm it yourself: https://www.timewarperapp.org
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7876
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#53  Postby electricgravity1 » Nov 06, 2016 12:37 pm

newolder wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:...

The assumption that big G is a universal constant has never been tested.

If G were different at the Earth, Moon and Saturn, for example, then the Apollo and Cassini mission calculations would fail. They didn’t/don’t. Come back when you have something substantial (a calculation) to contribute.


No they wouldn't \ didn't.
The gravity field of an object depends on the standard gravity parameter which is a product of big G and the mass of the object. The standard gravity parameter is measured directly, so NASA can send their space probes on correct trajectories without even knowing big G.

On paper, the universal constant gravity assumption can be fudged by hiding behind the standard gravity parameter GM, by setting M as required if G is a universal constant. This has led to some strange values for M and hence density for some celestial objects : Jupiter is said to have a density of 1.3g/cm^3, Saturn is lower than 1.0g/cm^3 less than water. Faced this the space community refused to budge on the universal constant gravity assumption, instead preferring to conjecture the existence of 'gas giants' as opposed to giant rocky planets.

Same problem happened with comets. There densities were even worse than Jupiter and Saturn, assuming universal gravity constant : comet 67P has density 0.6g/cm^3, Borelly 19 just 0.3g/cm^3 !! Like its made of feathers. Yet looking at them, they are rocks, no different than asteroids.

Conventional gravity theory is screwed.
Last edited by electricgravity1 on Nov 06, 2016 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
electricgravity1
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: henry
Posts: 48

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#54  Postby electricgravity1 » Nov 06, 2016 12:42 pm

newolder wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:...It has never been shown that space-time 'warps'.

From Eddington's 1919 solar eclipse observations to present day communications between orbiting satellites and GPS devices on Earth, every experiment shows space-time warps.
ESA source

ESA's Hipparcos satellite (1989-93) provided the emphatic confirmation of Einstein's prediction. Hipparcos charted the positions of stars so accurately that no eclipse was needed to see the effect of the Sun's gravity.

Where previous observations of the shifts had been confined to objects seen within a degree or two of the edge of the Sun, where the effect is strongest, the European satellite sensed the bending of light rays even from stars in the night sky, at right angles to the Sun. According to the Hipparcos scientists, Einstein's prediction is correct to within one part in a thousand.


Confirm it yourself: https://www.timewarperapp.org


So a light path bends under gravity. So what? So do tennis ball trajectories. Confirm it yourself, have a game of tennis. But there's no need to assert space-time is warped.
User avatar
electricgravity1
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: henry
Posts: 48

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#55  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 06, 2016 12:43 pm

electricgravity1 wrote:btw I notice this thread has been moved to the pseudo science forum. I put it in the Earth sciences forum, where I think its properly belongs.

This means a moderator has moved it, but hasn't given a reason, though I suspect its because he doesn't think gravity has an electro-static cause. I don't suppose it will make a difference me saying but I'll say it anyway : A theory can be evidenced to be wrong, yet still be scientifically valid, so plz put this thread back in the Earth Sciences forum! ( A example of a theory that is not scientific : " Undetectable, non interactive objects exist " - this can never be evidenced nor counter evidenced )

If you knew how both science and rational skepticism work, you'd know you've first have to evidence your assertions.
They don't get the status of fait accompli just because you asserted them.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 33
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#56  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 06, 2016 12:46 pm

electricgravity1 wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:I notice the OP talks about lower gravity during the time of the dinosaurs. This is in line with Earth expansion theory.

electricgravity1
a) could you please provide your sources for lower gravity during the time of the dinosaurs?
b) what are your thoughts on Earth expansion theory and how might this fit with the electro-static model of gravity?

Also, welcome to the forum!


a.) My sources : Dinosaurs were very big, far bigger than any land animal today.

This does not demonstrate that gravity was lower.
You'd have to demonstrate that it would be impossible for dinosaurs to exist with earths gravity.

electricgravity1 wrote:
b.) I think they are compatible, I've red a bit of the Earth expansion thread, and also seen Neal Adam's animations. An electric gravity model would allow gravity to vary over time, this is conducive to the EE theory, which requires Earth's gravity to vary over time.

What you think is irrelevant. What you can demonstrate is what matters.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 33
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#57  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 06, 2016 12:48 pm

electricgravity1 wrote:
Weaver wrote:I love it when people pushing absurd pseudoscientific nonsense try to lecture us on the "proper" way to debunk their bullshit.

You want someone to address the central point, electricgravity1? Here you go:

"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"

I know members were lamenting the decline of the Forum in Feedback a couple weeks ago - but pseudoscience trolls aren't the answer.


Your asserting electric gravity theory cannot be tested.


Either you have not read the post you are responding to, or you are deliberately misrepresenting its contents.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 33
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#58  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 06, 2016 12:51 pm

electricgravity1 wrote:
newolder wrote:Your personal incredulity is irrelevant.


Don't like the peer review system huh, go tell that to the top universities.

Hello sillly non-sequitur.
Peer-review doesn't operate based on incredulity.

electricgravity1 wrote:Anyway, try to criticise the substance of what I said, instead of just saying opinions don't count.

Most of what you post is nothing but your personal opinion or personal incredulity.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 33
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#59  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 06, 2016 12:53 pm

electricgravity1 wrote:
newolder wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:
newolder wrote:Your personal incredulity is irrelevant.


Don't like the peer review system huh, go tell that to the top universities. Anyway, try to criticise the substance of what I said, instead of just saying opinions don't count.

There is no substance to criticise.


here
electricgravity1 wrote:It strikes me immediately that this is not a physics experiment. Its observational heliology. A load of assumptions without the ability to control the subject or its environment. It has nothing like the validity of a physics experiment.

This is a load of assertions based on your personal credulity.
No cited facts, no quoted studies.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 33
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#60  Postby newolder » Nov 06, 2016 12:59 pm

electricgravity1 wrote:
newolder wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:...

The assumption that big G is a universal constant has never been tested.

If G were different at the Earth, Moon and Saturn, for example, then the Apollo and Cassini mission calculations would fail. They didn’t/don’t. Come back when you have something substantial (a calculation) to contribute.


No they wouldn't \ didn't.
The gravity field of an object depends on the standard gravity parameter which is a product of big G and the mass of the object. The standard gravity parameter is measured directly, so NASA can send their space probes on correct trajectories without even knowing big G.

On paper, the universal constant gravity assumption can be fudged by hiding behind the standard gravity parameter GM, by setting M as required if G is a universal constant.

Show me how. G is so small we might as well set it to zero (a Universal constant). Go ahead and calculate orbital mechanics now. :popcorn:

This has led to some strange values for M and hence density for some celestial objects : Jupiter is said to have a density of 1.3g/cm^3, Saturn is lower than 1.0g/cm^3 less than water. Faced this the space community refused to budge on the universal constant gravity assumption, instead preferring to conjecture the existence of 'gas giants' as opposed to rocky planets.

Same problem happened with comets. There densities were even worse than Jupiter and Saturn, assuming universal gravity constant : comet 67P has density 0.6g/cm^3, Borelly 19 just 0.3g/cm^3 !! Like its made of feathers. Yet looking at them, they are rocks, no different than asteroids.

Your irrelevant personal credulity issues notwithstanding.

Conventional gravity theory is screwed.

Very close to the Big Bang and in the centre of gravitational Black Holes, I read.
Last edited by newolder on Nov 06, 2016 1:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7876
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest