Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

Mary Rose
Today, physicists labour under misconceptions
particle physicists use it as an excuse
the other discipline is in a parlous state.

There's two ways to put an argument.
1. I'm right, and here's why:...
2. You are all wrong, therefore, I'm right.

A common factor of politicians, creationists, and electric universe proponents is that they spend a MASSIVE amount of their energy in attacking the other side in what can only be called propaganda campaigns.

IMHO, all of the above groups would be better off if they put forward arguments that stand on their own feet, and spend *ZERO* time slandering the "other side". (Just like science does, in fact)

This of course... will never happen.

reply to post by alfa1


You need to quote correctly when you post and include exterior, outside quotes in the proper tags.

Speaking of "settled science" I just discovered this item. Apparently, Physics doesn't believe in the impact of precedent within a system, which seems pretty odd, since other disciplines (like Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, and Cosmology) are precedence-dependent. The paper's author - Prof. Lee Smolin - seems to believe (and seems to be experiencing enough actual pushback from fellow scientists to cause him to suggest a certain amount of skepticism) that this "principle of precedence" is a breakthrough hypothesis, which leaves me with the feeling that whether the entire universe is an electric grid or not is the least of our concerns over whether science as anything but a multi-billion dollar three ring circus.

reply to post by Moduli


I wont come out and say I dont believe that you truly understand gravity, but I will ask a question to see if you do. How do planets continually orbit around the sun?

alfa1

IMHO, all of the above groups would be better off if they put forward arguments that stand on their own feet, and spend *ZERO* time slandering the "other side". (Just like science does, in fact)

Or even better, the simple admission that no one really knows for certain.

NorEaster
. . . which leaves me with the feeling that whether the entire universe is an electric grid or not is the least of our concerns over whether science as anything but a multi-billion dollar three ring circus.

I think that definitely money is a huge problem in science - people protecting their livelihood, power, and prestige rather than pursuing the truth.

Hi,
I'm a thinker/feeler when it comes to advanced celestial physics (don't know squat).

Cause and effect. Is gravity the cause- or is it an effect of something else? Does a vortex cause electrons to flow, or do flowing electrons cause the vortex?

Why can't one exist within it's own properties; be dependent upon it's own effective cause/effect?

That outside 'force' must be begotten from within?

(visually) Take a pillow-case and turn it inside out. By doing so, you just caused a void in the universe...

Only after the realization that there was a void, did we explode with wild ideas of a really big bang.

The universe is both inside-out, and outside-in, at the same time...electricity flows to form a vortex- and a vortex flows to form magnetically-charged gravitational fields.

Its so frustrating to think about what space may be, but oh well. It must be some type of connected substance, but its weird because it doesnt seem to be made of atoms, or other particles we can discern and measure, though it exhibits properties like it is a somethingness of material, such as gravity. How can this be occurring, how can it be that a mass, a concentration of energy in a single area, such as the sun, can change the nature of local space, such that a mass nearer to the sun then further, will be compelled to travel towards the sun. Is this activity dependent on the suns movement? Is there 'trapped space' within the confines of the sun, which causes there to be less space surrounding the sun, which compels objects to fall towards the sun rather then away, towards more dense space?

I dont think the idea of 3 d curve space is correct in envisioning how gravity works. Because imagine the sun, or a mass, and then imagine a space-gravity field existing all surrounding it. And then imagine this mass has some arbitrary extent of curvature on the 3d space. What would that 3d curvature look like, wouldnt it look like a sphere? If the sun has a 3d curvature like sphere of gravitized space surrounding it, and the sun is traveling linearly (orbitaly) through space, with planets orbiting it, due to its 3d curved sphere, what is keeping the planets closer to the sun orbiting it as they do?

After thinking I am still very far from confidently comprehending what is actually going on, but just using intuition and logic, experience and knowledge thus far, I am urged to say that it is more likely gravity or space is more like some supreme liquid or gas, or even malleable solid. Imagine the scenario of the sun, but instead of a sphere of curved space field, imagine a sphere of rapid waters. Imagine a mass spinning very fast and continually in the middle of a fish tank of water, and then placing other masses near. My only point in all this, is that space must be some type of medium, for gravity to work, and it is very elusive as to what that medium may be, and be like. Also the Aether people about light back in the day are probably right, because if the 'vacuum' is a material, which can be curved and distorted, and light follows the path of this distorted material, it is as if light is a property of this material, in fact it is dubbed the 'photon' field, which is coupled to the 'electron' field, which also related to gravity? Also space may function and react at very high rates of time, and at subtle dimensions, which may be why light travels the way it does...idk...anything.

What I find extremely interesting is the following... Mary Rose, you are making wild statements in regard what mainstream science is and is not doing, even making a statement that college textbooks are out of date... well let me ask a question here. (And before you jump on me for an apparent 'show me your credentials' attack, that really isnt the point.)

Have you studied this so called 'mainstream' physics at a college/university? How many of these said textbooks have you poured over? how many hours have you donated into reading of textbook material such that you are an authority on its content?

I scratch my head because I did a masters in Physics and Astronomy and a PhD in Experimental Particle physics and i find it quite confusing because most of the time text books are used as quick dirty reference for problems and some general information. Usually lecturers (at least my lecturers) taught from their own research. We go taught or told about the latest understandings and theories. Problems were posed to us and we were asked to figure them out, we were not 'poisoned' so to speak and told how to explain everything.

I find it a common theme in your posts to stand accusing everyone and back it up with very little.

Gravity is very weak as you say and as everyone admits, no one is hiding anything there. The difference in the understanding comes with that as has already been pointed out, Gravity as observed is a purely additive force. In that, the more mass you have, the more gravity, the only way to reduce it appears to be to remove the mass.

Electrostatic forces on the other hand require you to have a imbalance in protons and electrons. To drive a current it is absolutely required to have that imbalance. large scale imbalances like this are rare and hard to sustain. It is a higher ordered system than one with no imbalance or charge, so the system is inherently unstable. On Earth, large fields form in clouds which are then released as lightening, they are of incredible power, but only form in specific conditions and quickly equalize once the chain has started.

This is my issue with many of the whole electric driven theories is that, they never really explain anything or any of the effects, and the kinds of imbalances required have to be so enormous that its hard to really believe that a universe can be created in that configuration.


One observable which i hope you can appreciate is that the universe and everything in it tries to reduce to a low energy configuration or state. Nuclear driven stars are extremely easily explainable and very well modelled and fit many observables.

High mass stars burn hotter, they live shorter lives and they glow blue, when they explode they produce a mass dependant style of explosion, and their remnants can be explained by fairly simple quantum mechanics that an undergrad can understand. Stars appear to fit the models extremely well. Plus there are other types of stars that behave in different ways, and those too can be explained in terms of gravity driven nuclear reactors.

One wonderful example I can place of people not accepting data is that of people who come out criticizing the SNO experiment who proved that the sun is a nuclear driven system. But oh no no no that can be ignored right? because it doesn't fit with the whole EM driven sun idea, because the EM driven universe proponents cannot give you any credible theory to the production of neutrinos from the sun. I read online (about 5 minutes ago) someone saying that the SNO experiment didn't understand the data, The truth is however the commentator was too ignorant to even understand the SNO detector and experiment.

The sun is a gravity-nuclear driven object... the evidence is enormous. Before people make massive claims, they need to start off by explaining what we see in small chunks and provide convincing proof of how something like the sun works and gives rise to ALL the effects we see. So far, all i see is some interesting interpretation of plasma effects... and zero all else.

reply to post by ErosA433


Do all fundamental particles have electric charge? If there are ones that dont, why dont they? What does it mean that a particle such as a specific quark can have 1/3rd of a charge? Do only electrons interact with the EM field? If light follows curves of space, does this mean that gravity or space is coupled with EM field in some way? What occurs in stars, nuclear fusion, doesnt this have at least some electric nature, as in the attraction of charged particles involved? I am in no way a proponent of electric universe theory, I dont even know what the theory is... just felt like asking these questions. I do even know what the proponents of EU want to propose, or claim is true, or what impact their claims hold...I am curious in truth however, and am confident no man completely knows it.

ImaFungi
reply to post by ErosA433

 

Do all fundamental particles have electric charge?

No, neutrinos appear to be fundamental in Standard Model, and have no charge at all. Photons and Higgs bosons too.

If there are ones that dont, why dont they?

This is beyond my paygrade (there are particle physicsts here who can take this one up), but you can turn the question around to "Why do all quantum particles have the quantum numbers that they do?"

"What does it mean that a particle such as a specific quark can have 1/3rd of a charge?"

Are you bothered because it was 1/3 instead of a round number? That's a historical artifact, because electrons and protons were discovered much earlier and have -1 and +1 by some convention and the fact that there were any smaller fractional particles wasn't discovered until much later. Quarks are never free on their own so it's understandable. If you were going to relabel all the particles then electrons would have +3, protons -3. It makes more sense for the dominant charge carrier in practical situations (electrons) to be positive. Benjamin Franklin just guessed wrong, he made the convention and had a 50/50 shot.

Do only electrons interact with the EM field?

No, everything which is charged interacts with EM field. This is quite literally the practical definition of both E&M field and charge. Electrons, protons and every other charged particle does. In a more complicated way, even neutrons interact with the EM field because even though they are electrostatically balanced (zero net charge) they are composed of internal particles (quarks) which have charge and therefore give rise to magnetic properties. SImilarly, a neutral hydrogen atom if taken as a gross unit is uncharged, but because it's made of underlying separate charged particles can have higher-order electromagnetic forces, e.g. polarization and things that make lenses work and van der Waals forces in chemistry.

f light follows curves of space, does this mean that gravity or space is coupled with EM field in some way?

Yes. In General Relativity every field which is physically real is coupled with gravity, gravity is special that way we think. So yes, a region of very intense magnetic or electric field without any material particles will still be a source of gravitation. In realistic situations this effect is almost negligible.

What occurs in stars, nuclear fusion, doesnt this have at least some electric nature, as in the attraction of charged particles involved?

Yes. Nuclei are postively charged and repel each other electrostatically. This means that to squeeze them close enough to start fusion (nuclear reactions only happen when they're touching one another) you have to aim them very fast and straight on. Every other 'near-miss' deflects them and contributes to randomness and entropy. This is why nuclear fusion reactors haven't happened despite decades of work, whereas nuclear fission reactors were turned into practical products within a few years of discovering the basic nuclear reaction (discovered after fusion, in fact). In nuclear fission you shoot a neutron (neutral) into a nucleus so it isn't deflected before it can get there.

I am in no way a proponent of electric universe theory, I dont even know what the theory is... just felt like asking these questions. I do even know what the proponents of EU want to propose, or claim is true, or what impact their claims hold...I am curious in truth however, and am confident no man completely knows it.

Mainstream physics could be wrong about some things, but it isn't wrong in any obvious or stupid way. The reasons people think the universe works as it does are very very good and backed by lots of experimental evidence that laymen have no clue about. It's really much stronger and more complex than an average person realizes. Even if the average person recognizes that professional scientists know X times more about something than they do, the reality is that it's more like X^5 times more.

mbkennel



No, neutrinos appear to be fundamental in Standard Model, and have no charge at all. Photons and Higgs bosons too.

"The existence of a neutrino mass strongly suggests the existence of a tiny neutrino magnetic moment[14] of the order of 10−19 μB, allowing the possibility that neutrinos may interact electromagnetically as well" - wiki

Any way arent those special cases, The higgs and the photon, arent those the fabric of the EM field, would you expect the material that gives the phenomenon of electric activity to exist, to have electric charge, and if so which charge? How clearly do you understand the universe, what it is, how and why it works? What all these particles of energy are, and why they are fundamentally different and react in the manners they do? Is it as if the universe is stable and material exists, because energetic equilibrium forced electric counterparts to not just rub into one another and disperse into radiation? Please can you help me out and simplify your understanding? What is electricity? Are the strong and weak force somewhat electrical in nature? A photon is considered an electromagnetic wave, so although it itself does not contain a charge, in a way doesnt it contain a charge when it is in the state of magnetic wave, for this magnetic wave causes an electrical wave, which needs charge to cause, and when it interacts with an atom and increases an electrons energy state, does this not affect charge in some way?

This is beyond my paygrade (there are particle physicsts here who can take this one up), but you can turn the question around to "Why do all quantum particles have the quantum numbers that they do?"

I dont even know why quantum particles exist or what they are, so id start with that... Is all energy/material of the universe, 'coupled' in some way? Are they all parts of the same original stuff? Physical circumstances like energy density, velocity, angular momentum, etc. is what made one same stuff, turn into all the separate things which continue to travel in space and time and interact according to each parts physical circumstance? Is this the correct way to view the universe?

"What does it mean that a particle such as a specific quark can have 1/3rd of a charge?"

Are you bothered because it was 1/3 instead of a round number? That's a historical artifact, because electrons and protons were discovered much earlier and have -1 and +1 by some convention and the fact that there were any smaller fractional particles wasn't discovered until much later. Quarks are never free on their own so it's understandable. If you were going to relabel all the particles then electrons would have +3, protons -3. It makes more sense for the dominant charge carrier in practical situations (electrons) to be positive. Benjamin Franklin just guessed wrong, he made the convention and had a 50/50 shot.

Im bothered because I dont comprehend the nature of electricity, electric fields, charged particles to being with, so the fact that a particulate of energy or matter can have a fraction of a charge makes me all the more confused. Does that mean its charge is less powerful, so like if a particle has a whole charge and every time it goes near a magnetic field, it spins and points a certain way like the needle of a compass, a particle with half a charge would spin half way?

By the way, what is a magnetic field, in reality, in space, how does a magnetic field exist, what is going on there, if we had 'Gods eyes', if we could be sensually aware of every aspect of existence, what would magnetic fields appear as, ie holding to attracting metal objects near one another, what exists between them, what is that activity?

Did Newton really say the following:

"That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter...is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can fall into it."

Sir Isaac Newton

reply to post by mbkennel


Do you have scientific concepts for these questions?:

If forms exist at all, then there must be a fundamental form that cannot be destroyed. What is the scientific name for that form?

Is their a difference between space and the volumetric area of fields?

If all stuff is field forms with order, how can we know fields forms are moving and not their order/force/energy?

What is randomness? Can randomness coexist in a reality with order? Does randomness not have a cause, and if it does, then how can it be random and not order?

Mary Rose
Did Newton really say the following:

"That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter...is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can fall into it."

Sir Isaac Newton

If he did say it, it's a very profound statement
since dark matter was not in vogue in his time

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


He may have said it in a letter to a friend named Bentley:

Newton felt it was not necessary to know which direction gravity force acted as his three laws of motion and his universal gravity law applied either way. In 1692, Newton wrote his friend Bentley that it was inconceivable anyone skilled in science would ever think brute matter could attract other brute matter. Newton believed something material had to act constantly on bodies in orbit to keep them in orbit.

Source

reply to post by Mary Rose


Yes, he basically intuited Einsteins theory, that the medium of space must be the force carrier for the activity we are familiar with as gravity. In the first quote you posted, he was claiming that the force of gravity was not inherent to matter, in the sense the earth it self, the physical limited body of earth, is not using its material to grasp onto the moon. And that is Einsteins idea, that instead of bodies spooky action at a distancely gravitying one another, the entire universe, the entirety of space is a malleable field of some type of elusive energy, which is affected increasingly by bodies with increased mass.

I have the same problem with magnetism. You put two attracting magnets facing one another, in the same way newton said about gravity, I dont think the material of the magnet is physically crossing space and grabbing onto the other magnet to pull it near, it must be the affect of some medium which allows the presence of the materials, and their subatomic activities to be known in the local space between them, and this has been discovered to be the EM field.

there is no such thing as "settled science"....it is "currently accepted until proven otherwise". even I, as a non-scientist, knows that just from talking to friends that work in the fields of science.

Consider:

reply to post by Mary Rose


This isn't meant to come off facetiously, but I think people would prefer to hear why YOU think the way you do on this topic as opposed to cryptic one line responses and YouTube videos.