Gravity is unipolar,but electromagnetism is bipolar.What do you mean?
The Science of Biological Evolution (no politics or religion)
Sort:
celot, to sum it up, you disagree with Einstein? And all physics departments in the world don't knw what they are doing because they believe* in Einstein's relativity?
*)"Believing" here meaning that it's the best theory we have so far.
celot wrote:
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
Gravity is unipolar,but electromagnetism is bipolar.What do you mean?
The question is what do YOU mean. Again you make the same error by taking the view of gravity as being an independent force. There is no such thing. ALL things are electromagnetic in nature. The interplay between mass, momentum, inertia and electrical forces produce what we call gravity.
That makes no sense. Can you show me the math?
If gravity is an effect of eletrical forces, it would seem you could make things lighter or heaver by making an electric current pass through it, depending on how it works. Possible even weightless :)
My idea is the Standard Model accepted all over the world. I don't get your private revelation,sorry.
Am I also correct that action at a distance is accepted now as a thing? I seem to recall someone telling me that quantum entanglement can make particles interact even though one of them is on Earth and the other one is on the Moon.
Yes,and I'm pretty sure they've been able to teleport some particles.
Apr 21, 2016
0
#1169
celot wrote a lot of bold pronouncements as if he was as good a physicist as Einstein!
Pulpofeira wrote:
I'd say celot has biten more than he can chew here.
Elroch throws around words like:
"ENERGY." Any physicist knows that energy is nothing more than a mathematical convenience, a snapshot of an event in time.
No, they certainly don't.
Energy is an observable, dual to time, that can be measured on a scale. It is best thought of as one part of the energy-momentum 4-vector observable, as changes of frame of reference transform these values together, with precise rules saying how the scale changes depending on your frame of reference.transformations
"GRAVITY." First, ALL physicists agree, the universe is, "electromagnetic in nature," whether you discuss particles or waves.
No. All physicists actually agree that the Universe is understood in terms of 4 fields corresponding to forces (one of which is electromagnetism and one of which is gravity) and several other fields corresponding to matter particles.
Secondly, 'gravity" is a layman's term, there is no such "independent force" such as "gravity." "Apparent" gravity is the result of momentum, inertia and electro-negative opposites working together.
Gravity is the quantifiable result of energy and momentum. This is a well-tested fact.
Einstein's relativity suggests that the emptiness of space is composed of nothing and is essentially a vacuum.
To correct your lack of knowledge, GR says space has the properties of a 4-dimensional Riemannian manifold, a well-understood mathematical object which is more complicated than the 3D Euclidean space of our intuition.
We all know that light travels in a straight line.
No, people who understand relativity know that the space through which light passes being curved means this intuition is incorrect. Read about gravitational lensing.
As a result of this error,
Your error, you arrogant loudmouth, not theirs.
Einstein-ians argue that the reason that light bends around a planetary body is that the gravity of the planet causes space to bend. That begs the question, if space is nothing, how does nothing bend?
See above.
Einstein's relativity suggests ”spooky” action at a distance.
Sorry, but you are getting very confused. General relativity is an entirely LOCAL theory, where effects propagate at the speed of light. The term you mention is ONLY used in quantum mechanics. General relativity is NOT a quantum theory. Hope that helps you.
Newton, its inventor, was not comfortable with the concept but could not come up with something better.
Newton's theory is a very useful approximation, but Einstein's theory is better, and is local, as I mentioned.
Nikola Tesla, the greatest inventor of all time
I like Tesla, but there is no such ranking. Tesla did not invent the integrated circuit, the wheel, the jet aircraft, antibiotics, vaccination or many other things superlative in their way. Marconi also produced a superior form of radio than his.
was a contemporary of Einstein and, he passionately disagreed with Einstein's theory. Tesla agreed with Maxwell, the most famous late 19th Century Physicist,
Maxwell's work only makes sense in light of special relativity, and was a great inspiration for Einstein. There is a marvelous enhancement of general relative called the Kaluza-Klein theory that adds a 5th dimension and incorporates electromagnetism. However, this is very difficult to turn into a quantum theory, and we know the electromagnetic force is quantised.
. Academic "mods" met the two at the cross roads of History and, deliberately chose the wrong turn, Einstein's theory. Why?
If you had adequate knowledge of science, you would realise that "wrong" means that some experiment is inconsistent with it. THERE IS NO SUCH EXPERIMENT.
Maxwell, discovered his equations by trying to fill space with a hypothetical something that exhibited reasonable mechanical properties and attributing the electric and magnetic forces to whirling vortices in the pervasive medium. The idea was that charges produced vortices in this medium and that the whirling of the vortices close to the charge then produced other vortices etc. until space was filled with whirling vortices and the amount of whirling at any place was the electric force. In other words, in order to understand his own equations, he needed an ether, the famous ether that Einstein disposed of later. He also needed to have the vortices properties be determined by the charge or the whirlyness locally. To the modern physicist, the idea of an underlying mechanical system seems out of place and a little weird. This is due to the fact that Academic Science/Mods chose to abandon the discoveries of the true nature of space and time in exchange for Einstein's non-sense. Non-sense just brilliant enough to lead mankind astray from the truth for 100 years. Why? Understanding the truth of Ether Physics would allow inventors to solve all problems plaguing the world today such as, hunger, drought and shortage of power. Space here does not permit a thorough explanation. Suffice it to say that, as a result, WE ARE ALL JUST BOZOS ON THIS BUS (Dependents) crying like helpless baby birds for another worm from you know who.
As I explained, the Kaluza-Klein theory is a 5-dimensional extension to general relativity that incorporates Maxwell's classical electromagnetism in a covariant relativistic context. Einstein and Maxwell collaborate to prove you wrong.
Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
Yes,and I'm pretty sure they've been able to teleport some particles.
Neat. Teleporting is neat.
To tie this in with evolution, the human nose works by quantum mechanics. It's basically a sprectrophotometer.
And also in some migratory bird eyes has been found quantum mechanical stuff that enables them to "see" earth's magnetic field. (OK haven't verified this one from a legit source, but I think it checks out.)
Apr 21, 2016
0
#1171
One problem is that light actually loses itself 'cuz it has an itsy bitsy amount of mass. I've read like 3x10-27 eV or even lighter (1eV/SoL2 is 1.8x10-36 kilos). If light slowly disintegrates then everything AE said means nothing...they say.
& YKW ?....I bet light does 'cuz everything else does. And w/ all of light's other properties why wouldn't it have mass too ?
This is where AE's theories get zappoed w/ confirmation bias. To say light goes on 4ever is a very bold heuristic. But then, he wanted a sped-up solution while he was still alive. So I get that part. Sadly, he couldn't fully trust that there was a hereafter.
If I could've talked w/ him about the next life, I would've given the hair in his ears a pretty good reason to stand up.
Apr 21, 2016
0
#1172
Tesla is worshipped by Steampunkers when I used to go to their conventions....
....
celot you must realize it's crazy to claim nothing has been invented the last 100 years?
Are you using some 130 year old device to go on chess.com? My guess is you use a computer.
Anyway, it makes no sense to compare a theoretical physics guy with an inventor. They are playing different games. It's like comparing a top investor with a top theoretical economist.
I don't think there are many practical applications of GR? And it was the same with Newton I think. You can explain why the planets are moving as they do, but it's not really anything that gets people bread on the table. Maybe GR is usefull for sending satelites to Mars and such, but I think that's about it for the practical use of it.
Einstein did however discover the photoelectric effect, which is used in the photocells that open the doors in supermarkets and so on. I guess barcodes readers are based on that tech also?
As far as I know nuclear bombs (and power) are based on quantum mechanics and doesn't have anything to do with GR. Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics much, and kept trying to find flaws in it, unsuccessfully.
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
One problem is that light actually loses itself 'cuz it has an itsy bitsy amount of mass. I've read like 3x10-27 eV or even lighter (1eV/SoL2 is 1.8x10-36 kilos). If light slowly disintegrates then everything AE said means nothing...they say.
& YKW ?....I bet light does 'cuz everything else does. And w/ all of light's other properties why wouldn't it have mass too ?
This is where AE's theories get zappoed w/ confirmation bias. To say light goes on 4ever is a very bold heuristic. But then, he wanted a sped-up solution while he was still alive. So I get that part. Sadly, he couldn't fully trust that there was a hereafter.
If I could've talked w/ him about the next life, I would've given the hair in his ears a pretty good reason to stand up.
Light doesn't have mass as far as I know.
Apr 21, 2016
0
#1175
Raspberry_Yoghurt wrote:
celot you must realize it's crazy to claim nothing has been invented the last 100 years?
Are you using some 130 year old device to go on chess.com? My guess is you use a computer.
Anyway, it makes no sense to compare a theoretical physics guy with an inventor. They are playing different games. It's like comparing a top investor with a top theoretical economist.
I don't think there are many practical applications of GR?
The one I usually mention is that it is necessary to do two corrections to the clocks of GPS satellites. They run at a different speed to clocks on the ground for two reasons. The first is that the satellites are not stationary (special relativity) and secondly because they are at a different height in the gravitational field of the Earth (general relativity). The value of the two corrections (which are in opposite directions) come from Einstein's two theories.
And it was the same with Newton I think. You can explain why the planets are moving as they do, but it's not really anything that gets people bread on the table. Maybe GR is usefull for sending satelites to Mars and such, but I think that's about it for the practical use of it.
I believe exploring the solar system doesn't really need more than Newtonian gravity. The only thing Newton wouldn't have got almost perfect is the delay in communication signals simply due to the finite speed of light.
Einstein did however discover the photoelectric effect, which is used in the photocells that open the doors in supermarkets and so on. I guess barcodes readers are based on that tech also?
As well as that, his PhD work showed convincingly showed light came in quanta, which was one of the facts that led to quantum theory!
As far as I know nuclear bombs (and power) are based on quantum mechanics and doesn't have anything to do with GR.
I believe it wasn't long after Einstein showed how mass and energy were related that people knew there was a huge new source of energy from fission and fusion (the mass differences were already known).
Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics much, and kept trying to find flaws in it, unsuccessfully.
Yes, it was a philosophical bias towards determinism (which was consistent with all physics up to 1925). It is ironic that he and his colleagues came up with the EPR "paradox" as a way to show quantum mechanics could not be true, but it ended up showing quantum mechanics was weird.
Apr 21, 2016
0
#1176
It might be worth mentioning I am a big fan of Tesla too, since I read a biography of him long ago. He was a wonderful, crazy, brilliant guy. He was a superlative engineer and inventor but not a physicist. He created wonderful things, but some of his ideas were faulty because the scientific facts did not support them, and some were suboptimal (his radio transmitter was inferior because it did not use a dipole design, which uses energy more efficiently). He has no publications, discoveries or innovations in physics but great respect for him is indicated by having an SI unit named after him.
Apr 21, 2016
0
#1177
Tesla was not a theoretical physicist: he has no discoveries, publications, official or unofficial in this field. Correct me by example if I am wrong.
He did use physics brilliantly in his inventions, particularly the physics of Maxwell.
Yes well, there's more to nuclear bombs than the E = mc2 :) I don't think Einstein was doing much with plutonium and uranium etc, it's maybe more the Curies that did that?
The lost technology of the last 100 years is in direct reference to the things that could have been invented from the application of Ether Physics abandoned by Academia with the introduction of Einstein's theory, There is very little theory on 19th Century Physics since most of it's theoretical postulations were verified and proven by repeated experimentation and observation. The late 19th Century Physicists established the facts and evidence. Once proven a supposition is no longer a "theory." With application of ether physics devices can be invented which are considered impossible under the domain of Einstein.
1: The "lost technology" is not something lost, because those things never existed. You can't just imagine something and then declare it lost lol. I might a well say that I just lost a billion dollars that I imagined I had.
2: "Ether Physics" (whatever that means) never went anywhere, the books and all are still in the libraries. We still have it :)
I'm pretty sure the equations and so on are still used for many things. Newton's equations are also still used. Stricktly speaking they are wrong, but at Elroch also said, they give the same results for most practical purposes, so I am told you just use Newton instead of Einstein, because Newton is easier and the 0,0000000001 difference doesn't mater anyway.
I don't even think engineers (=inventors) are even taught TOR. So I don't really get this great big battle between TOR and Tesla you think is going on. The engineers use whatever equations work, if "Ether physics" they would do that.
The way you put it, the engineers in Tesla's company were advancing in great strides, everything was working, they were making big dollars, and then they just decided to dump it all because TOR came out.
Can't you see that this picture doesn't make sense?
3: Yes Tesla was a great inventor and so what? In science it's not the guy with the most patents that win.
Lol, well if Tesla denied the curvature of space, too bad for him, he is wrong, because it has been observed.
Apr 21, 2016
0
#1180
Tesla said (at the age of 81) "Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible".
Well, no. The conclusion is false as demonstrated by all supercomputer simulations of general relativity. Indeed he is proven wrong by the simplest static example of a spherically symmetric gravitational field, around any roughly spherical object. There is no tendency for this to "straighten out the curves". Rather, rays of light are bent around such an object because of the curvature of space time. This bending of light has been observed in many experiments, starting with Eddington in 1919.
Tesla was (in this case) the victim of a failure of intuition. No-one is invulnerable from this.
Of course there is. There are 4 fundemental forces. Strong Nuclear,Weak Nuclear,Electromagnetic,and Gravity. This what all phycisists agree on.