Why cant electromagnetic theory and current physics be combined?

Originally posted by BBalazs
Ps> i knew about ion thrusters, I wondered if there is any way to use the electromagnetism of space to propel a spaceship. Use the inherent electromagnetic field, or is that a stupid question?

Electromagnetism is quite well understood. At least, how it behaves. Maxwell's equations originate from around 1861, well before Einsteins relativity or QM. I have never heard of any experiment that shows them to give a wrong prediction.

As for making use of this force, the thing with the electromagnetic force around us is that it is in (near) perfect balance. For about every negative particle there is a positive particle nearby, resulting in an equilibrium. Or in other words, we do not notice the force at all around us. Only when we disrupt the balance, we can use it as a method to store, transfer or convert energy. But in nature, almost everywhere you look, the force is more or less in balance. A thunderstorm is a good example in nature where the balance is disrupted, but we have yet to find a good method to harvest that energy. But I can't really think of any other practice source of electromagnetic energy in nature. The electromagnetic field of the earth seems much to weak to do anything useful, although an interesting idea is this: en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by -PLB-


Thanks. That electric sail is an awesome idea.
I shall read up on it more.
Thats the kind of thing i was thinking of.
And magnetic sails to:-)

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Ohh, i get it.

No I don't think you do. You haven't explained how we would be measuring the velocity of something that doesn't exist. Please explain that.

reply to post by Arbitrageur



Thats a very good question.
As an amatuer I would go with perhaps you are measuring something though to be a nutrino, when in fact it is something else?
Or is that the wrong answer?
I mean we have measured many thing before, that turned out to be something else.
Systems create their own results.
Anyway, that what I would also like to know the answer to!
Now may I ask, presuming the math is correct, how can two very different systems be correct?
Having studied the logic of ad, i think I have the answer, however I am curious to hear yours.


Now could it be?
Could it be possible....that einstein got the theory right, and ad got the maths right?
Could it be, that ad is missing an extra dimension?
And adding so creates a more precise system?
Maybe even nutrinos are born adding an extra dimension?
Did you think of that?
Now if that turns out to be the case, I would like to be credited:-)

Originally posted by BBalazs
Thats a very good question.
As an amatuer I would go with perhaps you are measuring something though to be a nutrino, when in fact it is something else?
Or is that the wrong answer?
I mean we have measured many thing before, that turned out to be something else.

If you can explain what else it might be under the autodynamics theory, then you might have reason to start looking at some math.

But you can't. What else usually passes right through the entire planet Earth? Most particles just don't do that, so it's kind of hard to mistake it for something else.

Also regarding this claim:

Originally posted by BBalazs
However, it makes no difference to the fact that if the maths is right, then that system will create its own solutions.

You apparently don't realize that faster than light neutrinos are not a solution of any kind, they are in fact a huge problem for current theory if they are confirmed as FTL. So the whole train of thought about FTL neutrino measurements being made because they are some kind of solution to any system is probably one of the most illogical arguments I've ever heard. If we were discussing something other than FTL neutrino measurements, you might by some stretch of the imagination have a point.

reply to post by Arbitrageur



Ha i have a point. Cool:-)
Surely you are not suggesting that systems never hit a wall?
There are no dead ends.
Precision is key.
To me the genius of str seems to come from te adding of the extra dimension, am I wrong?
Str may be correct for our immediate surroundings, but on a universal scale?
Sure they progress, become more precise, but when they hit a wall, such as a nutrino wall, they just crumble, are or to put it a nice way, corrected.
I foresee a long interregnum of "no theory" if the cern is confirmed.
So I understand the nutrino problem for str.
I understand they are around.
So i take your point and understand it.
I know change my arguement that with the added dimension to ad, it could offer alternate explantions.
Or am i misunderstanding something?
I am under the presumption ad deny the nutrino because they have a 2 or 3 dimensional model, which is in fact logically more correct in the observation of some phenenoma.
Wouldnt adding an extra dimension also create a nutrino possibility in ad?
Then off course it is not technically ad any more, but the theory derived from a 3 dimensional model is off course wrong.
Doesnt make the math wrong.
Am i still illogical?

I have no attachment to ad, as you can tell, thats why it fascinates me that they have an apparently superior mathmatical model, and a theory derived from that.
If the marhs is right, forget their theory, why not add a dimension to it and see what happens?

reply to post by BBalazs


This link will eplain all of your questions. It is a very interesting read and easily understood for most part. IT takes a while to read but believe me once you start reading you do not want to stop.

Originally posted by BBalazs
Str may be correct for our immediate surroundings, but on a universal scale?

str?

Wouldnt adding an extra dimension also create a nutrino possibility in ad?

I don't know, are you just making stuff up off the top of your head on the fly, or is this part of some autodynamics theory I haven't read about? If the former, then I'd have to say it doesn't sound like a logical reason to look at autodynamics math.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Special theory of relativity.

Yes, i am making the stuff up.
I have examined the equations of ad by logic, and deemed them to be missing a dimension.
So I made it up as a possibility route of inquiry, I have no idea why, ad didnt make it up.
Its seems logical to add dimensions to the model to me.
It seems they are stuck in their 3d model, when they may in fact be onto somehing if they added an extra dimension.
Off course, i would be logic think, its about egos, as adding a dimension to their thoery would make it only an extension or correction of str, not an outright coup.
I am in no way suggesting, you start adding dimensions to ad theory, but who knows it could be fun;-)
I would like credit though as the proponent of that idea, if anything comes of it.
Is this such a stupid thing to think or suggest?

reply to post by BBalazs

Well you have more problems than just the neutrino's existence. You'd also have to show that the "picograviton" and the "electromuon" exist. If you really thought there was something to autodynamics theory I'd think you'd start there. If you can measure things predicted by the theory, then it might gain some credibility.

Trying to patch up autodynamics seems to me to be a bit like taking a 50 year old rotting wooden boat out of the water and trying to plug all the leaks in it somehow. You still have something that just isn't sound to begin with. You'd be better off starting from scratch and building a whole new boat, or a whole new theory, instead of trying to patch up AD to make it work.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Fair points.
But think of it this way:
1. The theory of ad bunk.
2. The formulas, equations (models) are correct.
I do believe they make very precise forecast in areas.
Which is to be accepted if it is a superior 3 d model.
3. It hasnt been debunked yet. Check the stanford experiment, it was latter proven to be falsely set up.
Isnt that a nice challenge?

I understand what you are saying.
I agree, but i think ad people are blinded by their model, all those moun and other stuff comes with a 3d model.
They are blinded, when perhaps the math could be ised as an upgrade of sorts.

I mean, what are models?
If any good they are mathmetical models and equations.
Now what you make of those equations is theory.
Ad people created a false model, but when their math is added an extra dimension, it could turn out to be more precise.

Right equations. Less missing dimension. Wrong theory.
Right equations. Plus dimension.....?

Is this an wrong assumption.
You know i only think in terms of systems.
It seems they "were" onto something, but got sidetracked into a wrong view.
I see the strenghts of systems and weakness.
The weakness of str as now applied is it sandlike structure, thats why a nutrino can bring it down.
Off course the whole nutrino could be something else entirley.
What maybe observed could indeed be wishfull thinking on many levels;-)

Anyway to summerize: forget the rotten boat, take the engine and the gold is what i say, if...

Originally posted by BBalazs
3. It hasnt been debunked yet. Check the stanford experiment, it was latter proven to be falsely set up.
Isnt that a nice challenge?

got a link to that?

I was speaking of dark energy, not dark matter, there are only theories about the existance of dark energy, but no actual proof aside from someone suggesting what they observed is the effect of dark energy, i'm not sure if there can be any lab run tests that can show the presense of dark energy, but there were many lab tests done with electric theories, and they seem to mimic real life very accurately, i would think more research would be done with this.


I found a website that describes a few tests being done with plasma and particle interaction and the theories make sense, there is the current model for the sun that many people here accept, and there is the electric sun model that others want to have more research on, it sounds like an equally plausible theory to me.

Originally posted by cruddas
I was speaking of dark energy, not dark matter, there are only theories about the existance of dark energy, but no actual proof aside from someone suggesting what they observed is the effect of dark energy, i'm not sure if there can be any lab run tests that can show the presense of dark energy, but there were many lab tests done with electric theories, and they seem to mimic real life very accurately, i would think more research would be done with this.

Why would someone suggesting what they observed is the effect of dark energy not be true? If the observations are true, they observed acceleration. Things don't accelerate without some force acting on them, right? At least that's our current theory with a lot of evidence to support it. And they don't know what's causing the acceleration, so they give it a name that indicates it's unknown, which is why it's called "dark energy"; "dark" is scientist lingo for "unknown". Regarding not being sure if lab tests can be done, I'm not sure either, but I discuss the problem indirectly in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The problem is that the amount of energy is very small per unit volume. Given how large the universe is, it adds up. Given how small the Earth is relative to the universe, there's not much to measure in an Earth-based lab.

Originally posted by cruddas

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

well thanks. I will check out what you recommended.
dictomy is not good, however this is not the case,
are you in essence saying there can only be 1 model?
because if the is the case physics should explain genetics and biochemistry.
I think dichotomy not.

As I said, the other "model" of electric universe proponents isn't a model at all, there's simply no evidence for the sun being powered by some undefined mysterious non-measurable electric current rather than nuclear fusion.

So regarding power of the sun, the alternate model really isn't one, there is no model. So yes, there's only one model I know of regarding how the sun gets its power.

Regarding other claims of electric universe proponents, they present a false dichotomy which in many cases does not exist, like claiming that mainstream denies electromagnetic effects. This is just not so. Mainstream denies that the sun is powered by something other than nuclear fusion, but mainstream does NOT deny that electromagnetic effects occur all over the universe. This is a false straw man argument from EU proponents.

That is a facinating piece of information you have here, there is no evidence of power source for the sun using the electric universe theory, but mainstream science is using dark energy right now to explain many things and THAT has no evidence either. The OP is wondering why they use one unfalsifiable theory and ignore another, a few people on these boards claim psuedoscience, but is there really such a term as psuedoscience?

This is misleading.

There is very strong evidence for nuclear reactions powering stars (various facts of HR diagram, supernovae, and most importantly direct neutrino detection) and therefore an alternate theory is strongly rejected without overwhelming evidence (and there is none).

The idea of 'dark energy' came as a complete surprise from *observational measurements*. Something like it is necessary (as far as we can tell) to explain the empirical data. However, the underlying physical mechanism is certainly not known, and scientists know it's not known, and dozens of explanations have been proposed and none are yet accepted because none yet has enough evidence, and it is a central unsolved problem in physics and everybody in physics knows it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by BBalazs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Thanks, what should I read if I want to know more about electromagnetism as the driving force behind the universe?
What is the established doctrine in physics (theories and such)?
What should I read to understand the 2 schools of though on this subject?
What theories are relevant to this area?

It doesn't make sense to say "driving force". You deny being victim to straw man arguments, but I don't accept your denial, you are clearly a victim of dichotomy thinking. This is not good.

There are three forces we know of:

1. The strong nuclear force is the strongest and dominates at the smallest scales.
2. Electromagnetism is about 2 orders of magnitude weaker and has an effect sometimes called a 4th force of weak nuclear. On the smallest scales electromagnetism dominates where the nuclear forces drop off.
3. Gravity is about 36 orders of magnitude weaker than electromagnetism. Based on this huge difference one might say that electromagnetism dominates, but the universe isn't this simple. There is so much matter in the universe that even though gravity is weak, when you add up lots of weak forces you can get something to compete with a much stronger force.

The mathematics, and experimental evidence supporting the math, is well documented for the different forces. Some of it is covered in this powerpoint presentation:

www.cs.unc.edu...

I don't know where you get the ideas that this math isn't well defined and understood, but it generally is. You can take Jupiter for example and calculate precisely the electromagnetic forces versus the gravitational forces associated with Jupiter. There would be some variables like if the sun emitted a CME, a stronger flow of particles would affect Jupiters magnetosphere with a corresponding effect on its EM effects, but gravity would be affected relatively little since the mass of a CME compared to the mass of Jupiter isn't that large. So I think Jupiter would be a case study you could Google for starters. Look up gravitational and EM effects associated with Jupiter. There's a lot of interesting documentation on both if you just search for it.

edit on 23-1-2012 by Arbitrageur because: fix link

AFAIK weak force is not an effect of electromagnetism. Rather, both forces are an effect of symmetry breaking of W and B bosons. Above 100 GeV they are the same force, but under that unification energy and in the current universe they are not the same force and weak force is not simply an effect of EM.

I might be wrong as my understanding of the mathematics involved is not up to par

reply to post by TheDebunkMachine

I didn't explain it very accurately I admit. But this should explain it more accurately:

secure.wikimedia.org...

The Standard Model of particle physics describes the electromagnetic interaction and the weak interaction as two different aspects of a single electroweak interaction, the theory of which was developed around 1968 by Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg. They were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for their work.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yes so they are in fact different interactions at the current total energy of the universe.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Well, it is slightly emberassing, but i cannot find the link.
However, I am still of the opion that the maths could be correct with an added dimension, with the tested theory wrong, inprecise, in need of an upgrade.
Even though the "theory" was tested and apparently failed, the fact that it was tested at all, shows to me it has some merit. Just cause the inventor of the theory doesnt upgrade his models with an extra dimension could still mean there is more to it.
I mean isnt this what is possible happening, on an ever deeper level at cern (higgs bosom), and with ftl nutrinos?
It seems to me that there are serious flaws in the currently accepted physics system.
So I am not disputing observations, and equations, I am however deeply concerend about the flaws and the dogmatic like approach.

Yes, things are observed, but they could in fact by something else.
The system as it stands is extremly weak and flawed at this time.
It is time for an upgrade or a totally new theory.
I stand by my points, and you will have a very hard time disputing this man (who has NOT been debunked):

nohiggs.wordpress.com...

People see what they want to see, and in wishful thinking add attributes, when in fact it could be somehing else entrirley. They also miss  actual observation as they are dogmatically on a narrow path, missing the sidepoint entirley.

I do not promote any theory. I am just merely interested, and even i can see that, unless a "miracle" happens the basics of the standard model and the theoretical part of gtr and str are soon to fall apart.
Or perhaps that miracle will happen with wishful thinking, or seeing "something" that is not god, as "god".
I do argue against observational evidence based proof, however indirect observational evidence, could be nothing more then dumb luck.
After all there is the baghdad battery. Does this support the understaning of electronics and a complex elecrrical tesla grid (ironic), I think not. I would pressume a tesla grid would leave less evidence.
It is what it is, dumb luck.

We are on a path. We are nowhere near the end. The end is the dogma itself.

I find that theories are proposed all the time, i remember global cooling as I am sure you do.

As an observer, I see that modern phyiscs is in a dogmatic trap, set by plato, who proposed all can be thought out, no need for observation.
In fact this is not the case. There are many paths. And we are ever evolving to be more precise.
If this is the case, then ALL theory is correct that starts with the basic premises (maths), one is no more speculation then the other.
So unless something is actually observed, without speculation, it could be dumb luck or something else entirley.
And if the basics are flawed, then is most certainly IS dumb luck.
Now I propose, is not the large part of modern physics based on a theory that in turn sprouts another theory, and so on.
Off course the basics maybe correct, although in need of a slight correction.
However a lot of current theory derived is just based on speculative analysis.
From the theory (with uncalled for, unobserved modifications of equation)  something is speculated, and it is quickly observed, but not studied. Hence there could be numerous other explanations. Could there not?
Not studying such apperantly observed phenenoma deeply and allowing for all explanations that are plausible, and offering one solution and quashing decent is the very derinition of dogmatic.
After all, were we to posulate that we can observe a dog in a certain area, could it not also be an animal, a colection of matter, could it in fact be a wolf or even a cat, innaprorpriatly observed, and so on...
Now this speculative result, which may or may not be what the initial theory predicts, is in turn used for more speculation.
In the end it is built, albeit logically, but on a pile of sand.
Hence the religious search for higgs boson.
Hence the unwelcome ftl nutrinos.
Now we have really really got ahead of ourseleves, and no this is not bacwardness, but a call for sanity.
I like science fiction as much as the next guy, however I am not impressed with scientific dogma, based on thinking out the universe.
I advocate nothing, just common sense, and to either disprove existing mathmetical and other theoretical models, or revist them.
Thats my view, from the outside looking in.

I may also add that mandhelbrots fractals are currently being only examined by computer programmers posing as physicists.
There is something more there!
The fractals are a model (or "code") for how the universe chooses to evolve.
It is very deep, and a proper examination by physicist could create an entirely new, updated model, theory.
After all he created a model, and modern physics created a theory, and then models it (universe). 
It seems far more superior to me to start with a model.
I may be wrong off course.
But is seems very vital to undestand to me, how the universe chooses to self organize, it is before physics imo.

Originally posted by BBalazs
Yes, things are observed, but they could in fact by something else.
The system as it stands is extremly weak and flawed at this time.

What flaws? You're typing on a computer using an internet using our current knowledge. If it was so flawed, it wouldn't work. But it works well as does much other technology. I see gaps in our knowledge. Our models aren't perfect but then no model of reality will ever perfectly duplicate reality. The models we do have are pretty close for what they address. And what we don't know, we don't know. That doesn't mean the models we do have that make accurate predictions aren't useful models.

It is time for an upgrade or a totally new theory.

Come up with a better theory, prove it, and win the Nobel prize. It happens all the time. Until you do that, your comments about how flawed existing theory are seem pointless as you don't seem to have anything better. And in the meantime we are making pretty good technology using existing theory, sending robotic probes to other planets, etc.

I stand by my points, and you will have a very hard time disputing this man (who has NOT been debunked):

nohiggs.wordpress.com...

You can't be serious. He says the Higgs will never be found and they think they found it in December and are trying to confirm it.