electric gravity

gravity electric

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: electric gravity

#61  Postby Arnold Layne » Nov 06, 2016 1:00 pm

Here we go, Expanding Earth all over again.
I'm a Pixiist
User avatar
Arnold Layne
 
Posts: 2711

Country: France
France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#62  Postby newolder » Nov 06, 2016 1:06 pm

electricgravity1 wrote:...
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.

The difference between an assertion and an observation is that which you don't appear to understand.
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

#63  Postby Alan B » Nov 06, 2016 1:12 pm

Arnold Layne wrote:Here we go, Expanding Earth all over again.


I was wondering about that. As soon as I saw 'EE' mentioned, that confirmed it. Could our poster be one of the 'EE' guys in disguise?
I have NO BELIEF in the existence of a God or gods. I do not have to offer evidence nor do I have to determine absence of evidence because I do not ASSERT that a God does or does not or gods do or do not exist.
User avatar
Alan B
 
Posts: 9999
Age: 86
Male

Country: UK (Birmingham)
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#64  Postby electricgravity1 » Nov 06, 2016 1:20 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote: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.


If ever you do a highschool level course on science, they will try to teach you about the scientific method.
They will try to tell you about...

hypotheses : theories \ assertions that don't yet have falsifying evidence, but clearly suggest a practical way of falsifying themselves.

Hypotheses are an integral part of science. The electric gravity theory is a hypothesis. It suggests that since electric charge is variable, and that gravity is electrostatic, then gravity of a set mass ( e.g. planet , moon, asteroid ) is variable over time. Hence it is likely that other worlds have different values of big G. Hence a Cavendish experiment on another world would be a good test of the electric gravity theory. Further a Cavendish would be an especially strong test because it would also falsify conventional gravity theory - this makes it a discerning \ distinguishing test, which is the best sort of test, although this is rarely taught in academia any more.
I wonder why conventional scientists aren't in a rush to do a Cavendish experiment on another world?... hmm

if you go to school, good luck on your science high school science exam, and try to remember my advice.
User avatar
electricgravity1
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: henry
Posts: 48

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#65  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 06, 2016 1:32 pm

Please do take care to use the quote tags properly so it doesn't mess up who said what.
electricgravity1 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote: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.


If ever you do a highschool level course on science, they will try to teach you about the scientific method

I'll ask you this once not attack me personally, especially not by making fantastical accusations about my lack of education.

electricgravity1 wrote:They will try to tell you about...

hypotheses : theories \ assertions that don't yet have falsifying evidence, but clearly suggest a practical way of falsifying themselves.

In science a hypothesis is not the same as a theory.
A theory is an explanation of observed facts that has passed peer-review.
Yours (electric gravity) does not qualify as such.

electricgravity1 wrote:Hypotheses are an integral part of science. The electric gravity theory is a hypothesis.

You can just mix colloqial and rigourous terms.
In science it's either/or. Once something becomes a theory, it's no longer a hypothesis.

electricgravity1 wrote:
It suggests that since electric charge is variable, and that gravity is electrostatic, then gravity of a set mass ( e.g. planet , moon, asteroid ) is variable over time. Hence it is likely that other worlds have different values of big G. Hence a Cavendish experiment on another world would be a good test of the electric gravity theory. Further a Cavendish would be an especially strong test because it would also falsify conventional gravity theory - this makes it a discerning \ distinguishing test, which is the best sort of test, although this is rarely taught in academia any more.
I wonder why conventional scientists aren't in a rush to do a Cavendish experiment on another world?... hmm

As I pointed out before, it doesn't matter what you suggest, think or can conceive of, it matters what you can demonstrate.
Hypotheses don't become theories the instant they're falsifiable. They have to be supported by actual evidence and demonstration.

electricgravity1 wrote:
if you go to school, good luck on your science high school science exam, and try to remember my advice.

Stuff your condscending bullshit.
"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: 32
Male

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

Re: electric gravity

#66  Postby electricgravity1 » Nov 06, 2016 2:00 pm

newolder wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote: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:


1st, you don't need to do orbital mechanics to show how to fudge gravity using standard gravity parameters. That you weren't aren't aware of this suggests you don't know orbital mechanics. 2nd, that you aren't aware of this after reading my post to you suggest you didn't understand. 3rd if you think " G is so small we might as well set it to zero (a Universal constant) " then you can't do physics.

Fudging gravity by hiding behind the standard gravity parameter and the unknown mass of a planet

by electricgravity1 as used by conventional space theorists for the last 100 years.

the standard gravity parameter u of an object is defined as
u = GM
where G is the gravity factor and M is the mass of the object

Here's the standard gravity parameter of Jupiter : 1.26686534×10^17 m^3 / s^2 from wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_ ... _parameter
Its measured directly, and isn't subject to human assumptions.

So, we know that
1.26686534×10^17 = GM for Jupiter
Since M is unknown for all worlds, if we want to assume G is a universal constant at 6.673x10^11, then we can attribute all variation of gravity force to different values of M for each planet.
For Jupiter 1.26686534×10^17 = 6.673x10^11 M
yields M at 1.9x10^27

The standard gravity parameter can be preserved with other values for G. For example : G = 2.0x10^-11 then
For Jupiter 1.26686534×10^17 = 2.0x10^-11 M
yield M at 6.3x10^27

In both these examples, the standard gravity parameter of Jupiter is unchanged at 1.26686534×10^17 m^3 / s^2 .

This example shows the gravity field of Jupiter does not change when humans assume big G is a universal constant or not, so we are free to make either assumption


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.

Correct. It doesn't matter what I think, so don't try to hide behind me with " Your irrelevant personal credulity issues notwithstanding " when faced with these strange densities that conventional gravity asserts for comets and giant planets. Deal with it, unless you are happy to hide in the lower tiers of the reasoning pyramid.
User avatar
electricgravity1
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: henry
Posts: 48

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#67  Postby newolder » Nov 06, 2016 2:32 pm

electricgravity1 wrote: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.


The product GM can indeed remain constant by changing values for both G & M. In this case, G is not a universal constant. :doh:

Anyhoo, how does this help you calculate orbital mechanics in electric gravity theory, where G plays no part?
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

#68  Postby electricgravity1 » Nov 06, 2016 2:47 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Please do take care to use the quote tags properly so it doesn't mess up who said what.

I'll take as much care of my forum punctuation as you do of your science, that's fair.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote: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.


If ever you do a highschool level course on science, they will try to teach you about the scientific method

I'll ask you this once not attack me personally, especially not by making fantastical accusations about my lack of education.


I'll tell you once I'll treat you as you treat me
"If you knew how both science and rational skepticism work, you'd know you've first have to evidence your assertions." - TE
was met equally by...
"If ever you do a highschool level course on science, they will try to teach you about the scientific method " - EG1

That you don't seem aware that I was responding in equal tone to your 1st personal attack on me, instead of paying interest to my argument, is typical of RS members. I'm neither surprised nor offended.

So now you do what every generic RS member loves doing, avoiding the subject and instead trying to nitpick, often failing. Yawn.

In science a hypothesis is not the same as a theory. A theory is an explanation of observed facts that has passed peer-review.


Wrong. Hypotheses are untested valid theories, that you failed to point this out in your 'explanation' just suggests you are trying to avoid the truth. Theories don't have to pass peer review. Many scientific groups go from hypothesis to testing to conlcusion without submitting their work to peer review.


TE wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:Hypotheses are an integral part of science. The electric gravity theory is a hypothesis.

You can just mix colloqial and rigourous terms.
In science it's either/or. Once something becomes a theory, it's no longer a hypothesis.


Not to me. A Hypothesis is theory, an untested theory, that's the way it is for me, and many other scientists.

TE wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:
It suggests that since electric charge is variable, and that gravity is electrostatic, then gravity of a set mass ( e.g. planet , moon, asteroid ) is variable over time. Hence it is likely that other worlds have different values of big G. Hence a Cavendish experiment on another world would be a good test of the electric gravity theory. Further a Cavendish would be an especially strong test because it would also falsify conventional gravity theory - this makes it a discerning \ distinguishing test, which is the best sort of test, although this is rarely taught in academia any more.
I wonder why conventional scientists aren't in a rush to do a Cavendish experiment on another world?... hmm

As I pointed out before, it doesn't matter what you suggest, think or can conceive of, it matters what you can demonstrate.
Hypotheses don't become theories the instant they're falsifiable. They have to be supported by actual evidence and demonstration.


According to you all of Einstein's work amounted to nothing. He never did any demonstrative \ practical work, only theory. This goes for thousands of scientists across all fields. What strikes the most is how perfectly convinced you come across in your writing.
If you do a high school science course they will try to teach you something like " science walks on 2 feet, theory and experiment ". If this sounds a difficult concept then take comfort in this : you already understand half of it : science requires experiment. So well done so far. Now you just need to gain an understanding that there is another component to the scientific method that only requires " suggestion, thought and conception " - its called theoretical physics.

Now, if you are capable of being realistic instead of spinning in your own fairyland, you might actually see there's a reason why I'm only doing theoretical physics atm and not doing a Cavendish experiment on another world. I won't condescend to telling you what that reason is, I'll let you show me and everyone here that you can work it out yourself.

TE wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:
if you go to school, good luck on your science high school science exam, and try to remember my advice.

Stuff your condscending bullshit.


I'm only reciprocating your condescending BS. Try for once to break your lifetime habits - consider critiquing the electric gravity theory, instead of telling an oldman scientist he doesn't know science. Then maybe you'll stop receiving condescending BS.
User avatar
electricgravity1
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: henry
Posts: 48

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#69  Postby electricgravity1 » Nov 06, 2016 3:14 pm

newolder wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote: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.


The product GM can indeed remain constant by changing values for both G & M. In this case, G is not a universal constant. :doh:

Anyhoo, how does this help you calculate orbital mechanics in electric gravity theory, where G plays no part?


Over conventional theory there is practically little advantage to using electric gravity theory for calculating orbital mechanics for spacecraft trajectory. This is because wherever big G crops up in orbital mechanics calcs, its always accompanied by the mass of a large object such as a monn planet or star. That is in fact the reason why the standard gravity parameter was invoked and made a standard : because in orbital calcs you never need big G by itself.

However there are some fringe phenomena electric gravity could easily explain that conventional gravity cannot : the pioneer anomaly : spacecraft moving away from the sun slowdown slightly but definitely more than they are supposed to by conventional gravity. Electric gravity offers a simple explanation : There electric charge is changing, hence this will affect their attraction. Heck you don't even need electric gravity : just say the spacecraft is getting ionized by space plasma, so has become charged, and this pulls it back towards the sun.
The flyby anomally : Spacecraft that fly past planets get an unexpected extra gain in KE. This may be due to rapidly changing electro-static effects.

For some reason, conventional space theory has long neglected electric effects in space.

Also, planetary rings : Conventional gravity doesn't explain them. They are likely due to powerful van-allen belts. Although again this can be explained by just considering electric theory instead of insisting orbital mechanics are electrically neutral.
User avatar
electricgravity1
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: henry
Posts: 48

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#70  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 06, 2016 3:25 pm

electricgravity1 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Please do take care to use the quote tags properly so it doesn't mess up who said what.

I'll take as much care of my forum punctuation as you do of your science, that's fair.

You are aware that the FUA you signed, prohibits inflammatory posting like this?
You've not shown any failures on my part anyway nor is it relevant to proper quoting which is also mandated by the FUA, so your response is a non-sequitur.

electricgravity1 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote: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.


If ever you do a highschool level course on science, they will try to teach you about the scientific method

I'll ask you this once not attack me personally, especially not by making fantastical accusations about my lack of education.


I'll tell you once I'll treat you as you treat me

This isn't your personal blog. If you wish to retain your posting privileges, you have to abide by the FUA, which prohibits personal attacks.
Not to mention that personal attacks are irrational in and of themself as is 'I know what you are, but what I' peurile remarks.

electricgravity1 wrote:
"If you knew how both science and rational skepticism work, you'd know you've first have to evidence your assertions." - TE
was met equally by...
"If ever you do a highschool level course on science, they will try to teach you about the scientific method " - EG1

These are not at all the same however, as you demonstrated in the post I responded to that you do not know the difference between assertion based conjecture and demonstrated scientific theories.
I said nothing about your education other skills, nor did I even imply that you had not graduated highschool.

electricgravity1 wrote:
That you don't seem aware that I was responding in equal tone to your 1st personal attack on me,

Bullshit.
I did not make a personal attack. I pointed out that you did not seem to know that a scientific theory first needs to be demonstrated to be true, before you can start demanding people disprove it.
That you can't just assert it's true unless someone disproves it.
I said nothing about your personality, nor your education, beyond this specific topic, which you demonstrated to be ignorant about.

electricgravity1 wrote: instead of paying interest to my argument, is typical of RS members. I'm neither surprised nor offended.

Given that you've little to no experience with this forum this is nothing but a transparent dismissive attack on the forum membership. :roll:

electricgravity1 wrote:
So now you do what every generic RS member loves doing, avoiding the subject and instead trying to nitpick, often failing. Yawn.

You're the one offering nothing but blind assertions and demanding other peopel disprove it.
You're the one making unsubstantiated, blanket assertions about a membership you know fuck all about.
You're the one responding with personal attacks.

In short you're in no position to lecture others on what and how they should post.

electricgravity1 wrote:
In science a hypothesis is not the same as a theory. A theory is an explanation of observed facts that has passed peer-review.


Wrong.

Counterfactual blind assertion.
But do continue to demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about.

electricgravity1 wrote: Hypotheses are untested valid theories,

Nope. They're untested conjectures. Nothing more.


electricgravity1 wrote: that you failed to point this out in your 'explanation' just suggests you are trying to avoid the truth.

Wrong. I cannot point out things that are not facts.


electricgravity1 wrote: Theories don't have to pass peer review.

Yes, scientific theories do.

electricgravity1 wrote: Many scientific groups go from hypothesis to testing to conlcusion without submitting their work to peer review.

Another blind assertion.
If such groups exist they have not arriverd at a scientific theory.


electricgravity1 wrote:
TE wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:Hypotheses are an integral part of science. The electric gravity theory is a hypothesis.

You can just mix colloqial and rigourous terms.
In science it's either/or. Once something becomes a theory, it's no longer a hypothesis.


Not to me.

I don't care for your humpty dumpty definitions, nor do physicists.

electricgravity1 wrote: A Hypothesis is theory, an untested theory, that's the way it is for me, and many other scientists.

For you perhaps, not for scientists.


electricgravity1 wrote:
TE wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:
It suggests that since electric charge is variable, and that gravity is electrostatic, then gravity of a set mass ( e.g. planet , moon, asteroid ) is variable over time. Hence it is likely that other worlds have different values of big G. Hence a Cavendish experiment on another world would be a good test of the electric gravity theory. Further a Cavendish would be an especially strong test because it would also falsify conventional gravity theory - this makes it a discerning \ distinguishing test, which is the best sort of test, although this is rarely taught in academia any more.
I wonder why conventional scientists aren't in a rush to do a Cavendish experiment on another world?... hmm

As I pointed out before, it doesn't matter what you suggest, think or can conceive of, it matters what you can demonstrate.
Hypotheses don't become theories the instant they're falsifiable. They have to be supported by actual evidence and demonstration.


According to you all of Einstein's work amounted to nothing.

Stop making up fanastical straw-man that demonstrate dishonesty and ignorance on your part.

electricgravity1 wrote:
He never did any demonstrative \ practical work, only theory.

Ever heard of mathematics?

electricgravity1 wrote: This goes for thousands of scientists across all fields.

Maybe in lalaland, here in reality they have to demonstrate that their theories works, through demonstration, which can include but need not be limited to proofs.

electricgravity1 wrote:
What strikes the most is how perfectly convinced you come across in your writing.
If you do a high school science course they will try to teach you something like " science walks on 2 feet, theory and experiment ". If this sounds a difficult concept then take comfort in this : you already understand half of it : science requires experiment. So well done so far. Now you just need to gain an understanding that there is another component to the scientific method that only requires " suggestion, thought and conception " - its called theoretical physics.

Now, if you are capable of being realistic instead of spinning in your own fairyland, you might actually see there's a reason why I'm only doing theoretical physics atm and not doing a Cavendish experiment on another world. I won't condescend to telling you what that reason is, I'll let you show me and everyone here that you can work it out yourself.

It seems you're bent on suicide by mods. That or you haven't read the FUA you signed which prohibits inflammatory and ad-hominem remarks like the above quote.

electricgravity1 wrote:
TE wrote:
electricgravity1 wrote:
if you go to school, good luck on your science high school science exam, and try to remember my advice.

Stuff your condscending bullshit.


I'm only reciprocating your condescending BS.

More counterfactual nonsense.
I said nothing about your highschool education. I merely pointed out that what you posted demonstrates you don't know that scientific theories need to be demonstrated and peer-reviewed before you can demand that people disprove it.
That you cannot just assert something and then shift the burden of proof by demanding skeptics disprove your assertions.

electricgravity1 wrote:
Try for once to break your lifetime habits - consider critiquing the electric gravity theory, instead of telling an oldman scientist he doesn't know science. Then maybe you'll stop receiving condescending BS.

More personalised, baseless shite.
Last edited by Thomas Eshuis on Nov 06, 2016 3:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"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: 32
Male

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

Re: electric gravity

#71  Postby newolder » Nov 06, 2016 3:34 pm

The Pioneer anomaly was reportedly solved in 2012.
Scientists have finally cracked a decades-old spaceflight riddle, figuring out why NASA's Pioneer 10 and 11 probes began to slow mysteriously as they sped far from the sun.

The cause of the so-called "Pioneer Anomaly," it turns out, is heat coming from the electrical current flowing through the probes' instrument and power systems. This heat pushed back on the spacecraft, causing them to decelerate slightly, according to a new study. ...

space.com source
arxiv
As for the rest, electric gravity is a misnomer.
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

#72  Postby electricgravity1 » Nov 06, 2016 4:04 pm

"The Pioneer anomaly was reportedly solved in 2012."

Thx I wasn't aware of that.

And thanks to Thomas Eshuis for his useful contribution to electric gravity theory discussion. Nice that we have members who can concentrate on and discuss the subject matter in a mature way and who do not specialize in roaming the forums looking to start and be self declared victims in personal flame wars because they feel deprived of attention.
User avatar
electricgravity1
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: henry
Posts: 48

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#73  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 06, 2016 4:07 pm

electricgravity1 wrote:"The Pioneer anomaly was reportedly solved in 2012."

Thx I wasn't aware of that.

And thanks to Thomas Eshuis for his useful contribution to electric gravity theory discussion. Nice that we have members who can concentrate on and discuss the subject matter in a mature way and who do not specialize in roaming the forums looking to start and be self declared victims in personal flame wars because they feel deprived of attention.

:roll:
"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: 32
Male

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

Re: electric gravity

#74  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Nov 06, 2016 4:31 pm

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.

This is where we encounter our first problem. If the Earth's electrical field induces opposite charges in every object on Earth, attracting them thereby, then we should observe, on a smaller scale, every object on Earth repelling each other- and given that we see the field-induced "gravity" effect in everything pretty much proportionally with mass, we should see a similarly proportionate mutual repulsion of objects at Earth's surface. But we do not.
- 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.

Either this is nonsense, or I'll need you to expand on the idea, because I'm not following.
- 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.

The biggest problem with ascribing the attraction of all grossly non-polarizable materials to Earth to the dielectric effect is that we see a differential dialectric effect in different materials as a result of their atomic/molecular composition, and also as a result of their gross physical structure. The dialectric effect is larger for thin materials and smaller for thick materials. If things were as you claim they are, the effects of static-electric "gravity" would be much more variable than the gravity we observe, and capacitors would not work.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 46
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#75  Postby electricgravity1 » Nov 06, 2016 4:54 pm

This is where we encounter our first problem. If the Earth's electrical field induces opposite charges in every object on Earth, attracting them thereby, then we should observe, on a smaller scale, every object on Earth repelling each other- and given that we see the field-induced "gravity" effect in everything pretty much proportionally with mass, we should see a similarly proportionate mutual repulsion of objects at Earth's surface. But we do not.


There is a different way. The small object near Earth's surface remain neutral. The Earth's dielectric capacity assumes the role of 'charged object'. This way the small objects don't have to get charged and then start repelling other objects. By deduction that's gotta be the way it is.

Yes I didn't word it accurately. Here's a pic, that says a lot of words
Image

The dialectric effect is larger for thin materials and smaller for thick materials. If things were as you claim they are, the effects of static-electric "gravity" would be much more variable than the gravity we observe, and capacitors would not work.


That's on the assumption its the small near Earth objects that are doing the dielectric attraction. They aren't, its the Earth doing it. Also, thin= good , fat = poor dielectric is based on electronic theory. But what about the Earth's interior? A large volume of hot high density plasma. Plasma makes its own thin layers in response to uneven charge distribution.

Charge object surrounded by multi layered self organised plasma
Image
User avatar
electricgravity1
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: henry
Posts: 48

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#76  Postby Arnold Layne » Nov 06, 2016 5:33 pm

OK, that confirms it for me. I suspected the daft graphics would be next!

I think we may be on a countdown..........
I'm a Pixiist
User avatar
Arnold Layne
 
Posts: 2711

Country: France
France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#77  Postby BWE » Nov 06, 2016 6:20 pm

Calilasseia wrote:
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.

lol. Cali, you are more than half the reason I visit ratskep. Thank you for this post.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2666

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#78  Postby Scar » Nov 06, 2016 6:46 pm

Sheesh the smell of socks in here is disturbing.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 35
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#79  Postby electricgravity1 » Nov 06, 2016 6:51 pm

lol. Cali, you are more than half the reason I visit ratskep. Thank you for this post.


He appears to be a one-off skittle. Tried to set up some counter arguments to electric gravity, but I knocked them all over with ease. Since then he hasn't tried again.

You like playing skittles too? We should go bowling. :p
User avatar
electricgravity1
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: henry
Posts: 48

Print view this post

Re: electric gravity

#80  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 06, 2016 6:55 pm

electricgravity1 wrote:
lol. Cali, you are more than half the reason I visit ratskep. Thank you for this post.


He appears to be a one-off skittle.

Once again jumping to unjustified conclusions I see.

electricgravity1 wrote: Tried to set up some counter arguments to electric gravity, but I knocked them all over with ease.

You really believe that don't you?


electricgravity1 wrote: Since then he hasn't tried again.

Could that be because, gaps, he has a live outside this forum?
FFS. :picard:


electricgravity1 wrote: You like playing skittles too? We should go bowling. :p

You're trolling is really rather subpar.
"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: 32
Male

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

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest