Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

reply to post by Mary Rose


I personally have come across that persons theories before, and I dont think I agree... They call for more questions then they give answers. His Em rope theory. Though if the EM field is embedded/one with space/gravity field ( which it seems like it is, making the physicists who believed in a luminiferous aether quite right) his em rope theory is pretty much the same thing, though he is claiming that em field between bodies causes them to orbit one another, while the status quo belief is that the space field between bodies is disrupted from its equilibrium in such a way, that the larger a mass is, its local area of space will be distorted increasingly, and this activity causes bodies to orbit the mass.

Here's a presentation regarding an alternative theory of gravitation. It's entitled "Neomechanical Gravitation Theory" and involves vortex formation of matter and an aether pressure gradient. Part of the theory is that the universe is infinite (which I agree with). The proponents consider aether to be matter in a different form.

Published on Aug 8, 2012

Glenn Borchardt, Stephen J. Puetz - This paper proposes that gravity is caused by the actions of non-isotropic, heterogeneous distributions of aether particles throughout the universe. The Gravitational Pressure Gradient of a massive body describes these divergent aether distributions. The activity and density of free aether particles are greatest in the so-called vacuum of intergalactic space; they are least where the density of baryonic matter is greatest. This gradient is analogous to the atmospheric pressure gradient that surrounds Earth, but in reverse. Aethereal pressure increases with distance from the center of Earth just as it does for all celestial vortices. Ordinary baryonic matter consists of aether complexes that limit the free motion of aether particles, displacing them and producing what is, in effect, a sort of vacuum for aether. In addition to displacement, neomechanical interactions involving the absorption and emission of motion cause decreases in the activity of proximal aether, resulting in the pressure gradient. The result is that gravitation is a universal, but local, phenomenon. This proposal is consistent with the assumption of infinity, which underlies neomechanics and the belief that there are no true pulls in nature, as recognized in Newton's laws of motion. It avoids the problems of non-local causes of gravitation conjectured by Le Sage. The layering produced by a rapidly rotating celestial vortex during its early evolution pushes baryonic matter toward its axis. Satellites stay in orbit because distal aether pressure is greater than proximal aether pressure. The theory also predicts that the velocity of light is a function of aether density, in tune with gravitational and galactic redshift measurements.

Unfortunately, the sound is not very good:

reply to post by Mary Rose


That is the same theory of einsteins gravity, just different terms.

Also what do you mean by the universe is infinite? Infinite in time? Space? Material? It is a tricky thing to use the term infinite.

reply to post by ImaFungi


The aether has always existed and will always exist.

Where is a vortex in Einstein's theory? An aether pressure gradient?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Aether pressure gradient is space or the gravity field in Einsteins ideas. They state the same thing, when a mass is present it displaces the 'aether pressure gradient', in Einsteins, when a mass is present, it displaces the 'gravity field'.

As for the vortex I dont know what they are referring to, how they came to the conclusion something exists as a vortex, or what that means as far as how the vortexes were created and exist stabley. So they think instead of particles and waves, electron, quarks, these things are vortexes? vortexes of electron energy, and a vortex of quark energy, and differences in the style of vortex arise in the differences in quarks and such?

This is thought-provoking: "Gravity Is Magnetism."

Abstract

In this study in physical-chemistry we, first of all, demonstrate with simple experiments in column-isotachophoresis that gravity is a magnetic force created, in the nucleus of the atom, by an induction mechanism, each time that the neutron is transformed into a proton and vice-versa by the exchange of a pion. The conclusion is that only electromagnetic forces are present in the universe. We show first in isotachophoresis the presence ,in an electric field ,of magnetic properties for ions , by orientation of the electron orbits in the atoms and secondly we show an opposite magnetic force created by the nuclei of the atoms . This magnetic force of the nuclei forms the basic principle for explanation of gravity.
read more >>

reply to post by Mary Rose


Typical pseudo-scientific garbage where they have no idea what they are talking about. From their "paper", if you can call it that (look at the pathetic list of two references at the end which refer to the same author's own material, which tells you it's not a real paper):

www.gravityismagnetism.com...

A photon is an energy particle in an electric field.

You can call it an energy particle, but it doesn't have to be in any external electric field, so this description is false.

Mostly, speaking about photons, we are thinking on the quanta of light, which are
produced by the electrons in the atom. In the experiments it are not light photons but electric
tension photons, produced in the tension field between anode and cathode.

Instead of light they probably mean the broader term electromagnetism, since non-light frequencies like radio waves also are transmitted in photons.

But what's created between the anode and cathode is an electric field. So they made up some new kind of photon they call "electric tension photons" but they provide no evidence for this concoction of theirs. There is plenty of evidence for real photons.

How many pseudoscientific sins can they commit at once?
-False description of a "real" photon (no external electric field required)
-Dictionary hijacking to refer to something other than photons as photons (electric tension photons)
-Making up a new type of photon with no evidence
-Claiming photons have electric charge (they don't), not even the real photons, let alone their invented type

So we have different kinds of photons, which are energy particles in an electric field. We have the
light photon, the electric tension photon and also the graviton. The light photon is coming from the
electron and has a very small positive charge. The tension photon is coming from the anode
which is positive and the graviton takes his origin in the atomic nucleus which is positive to.

Mary if you spent half as much time studying real science as you do following pseudoscience, you'd be shaking your head at all these claims which contradict experiments already performed, instead of proclaiming that it's "thought provoking"

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Some people do original work instead of regurgitating what others have done.

reply to post by Mary Rose

Everything science is based on was an original experiment at one point in time, so I don't see how claiming work is original distinguishes it in any way.

It's replication and confirmation of experimental results that makes it good science, since some attempts to replicate original work have failed, even when it was performed by trained scientists.

But when someone directly contradicts previously done work (such as saying photons have electric charge) and provide no evidence for such claims, that's not science at all, it's crackpottery. That type of "original work" as you call it, is useless, and has never amounted to anything, except perhaps for some small profits made by selling crackpot DVDs to the gullible.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Your choice of words is an indication of a closed mind .

Mary Rose
"Gravity Is Magnetism"

From the Abstract of Part 2: Other evidence:

. . . we are very probably alone in the universe.

That part is probably wrong.

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Some people do original work instead of regurgitating what others have done.

edit on 09/21/13 by Mary Rose because: Remove an off-topic

Professors at major universities are obligated to do this, day in and day out. But they also have to understand what others have done.

In practice there are zillions of alternate fundamental theories, and heterodox proposals by real scientists---some of them even published in say Physical Review D.

The standard for making progress though is far far higher than the (quite literally) Dunning-Kruegerish ignorant BS from the crackpots; in particular the necessity to link with the extraordinary array of known experimental facts and currently successful and predictive theories commonly accepted for extremely good reasons.

ImaFungi
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

I personally have come across that persons theories before, and I dont think I agree... They call for more questions then they give answers. His Em rope theory. Though if the EM field is embedded/one with space/gravity field ( which it seems like it is, making the physicists who believed in a luminiferous aether quite right) his em rope theory is pretty much the same thing, though he is claiming that em field between bodies causes them to orbit one another, while the status quo belief is that the space field between bodies is disrupted from its equilibrium in such a way, that the larger a mass is, its local area of space will be distorted increasingly, and this activity causes bodies to orbit the mass.

When we think we know all the answers, then we quit learning. What is wrong with more questions? I call that an opportunity, and it seems some people just want to take the first idea that comes along, and stick with it. I don't trust in science that uses stuff you can't observe to explain a theory. Dark matter? Can you please put some on display for me? Black Holes? Oh, I know we just haven't figured out how to show it yet. It reminds me of Darwin and his theory you can't observe and shows nothing in the fossil record he thought would be there, but it's what people like. It explains it for them, an if it's not how he said it is, then we are left with questions!

I really do think that as much as people think we are enlightened to day, they have no idea just how locked into a darkness of intellectual arrogance beyond belief.

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Some people do original work instead of regurgitating what others have done.

You know this bothers me, that so many people who stand by the "accepted" theories always go on about what journal was it published in or like the one you responded to about other sources. Some people actually do their own research, looking outside of the accepted theory box, and they are immediately labelled a nut and can't get anything in journals. Respected people with letters galore behind their names, and who have been published many times in journals suddenly become persona non grata amongst their peers if they start to stray. They get fired and can't get anything published because of politics.

I find the information interesting and posted a thread not long ago about this very topic. The same sort of comments appeared there. Truth seekers are not afraid of information or digging elsewhere. Sometimes they dig through a lot of crap to find a gem of truth, but it's because of this that they learn and we learn from it.

UnifiedSerenityI don't trust in science that uses stuff you can't observe to explain a theory. Dark matter? Can you please put some on display for me? Black Holes? Oh, I know we just haven't figured out how to show it yet.

I'm sorry if you can't understand abstractions, but this is what most of science is based off of. It's called deduction. Based on some things you know, you deduce something else must be true. You don't have to go and then "observe" that thing--that's the point of deduction.

E.g., I observe that a house is empty, I see three people go into it, and then later on two leave. I know one person is inside the house. I don't need to search the house to determine that. I just need to be sure I am careful in measuring who goes in and out. All you have to understand is the rules of arithmetic and why they apply to this situation. You've abstracted all the other details away (the same model also applies to a car instead of a house, or dogs going into a doghouse, or dollars going into your bank account).

It's no different when we talk about dark matter. We measure the total mass, we measure how gravity works, and we deduce what must be there. It's very simple.

It reminds me of Darwin and his theory you can't observe and shows nothing in the fossil record he thought would be there, but it's what people like.

There is a ridiculously huge amount of direct evidence for evolution in the form of all kinds of transitional fossils, as well as laboratory observations of actual evolution happening in microorganisms. Very few things have as much direct evidence as evolution. Not to mention the huge amount of indirect evidence...

UnifiedSerenity

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Some people do original work instead of regurgitating what others have done.

You know this bothers me, that so many people who stand by the "accepted" theories always go on about what journal was it published in or like the one you responded to about other sources. Some people actually do their own research, looking outside of the accepted theory box, and they are immediately labelled a nut and can't get anything in journals. Respected people with letters galore behind their names, and who have been published many times in journals suddenly become persona non grata amongst their peers if they start to stray. They get fired and can't get anything published because of politics.

I find the information interesting and posted a thread not long ago about this very topic. The same sort of comments appeared there. Truth seekers are not afraid of information or digging elsewhere. Sometimes they dig through a lot of crap to find a gem of truth, but it's because of this that they learn and we learn from it.

Yeah, and how are we supposed to point out the crap, if we are forbidden (for "following old paths", not understanding "new ideas" and so on) from doing so?

If I would come and would say "this lightswitch doesn't switch of that light, it ENHANCES the dark light, so it gets darker in here" - do you really want to start a discussion about this or would you believe someone who BUILT every single part of that system (switch-powerline-lightbulb-connection to electrical system) together to KNOW that there is no "dark light" involved?

For large claims you have to present large proofs or combined theories to build an underlaying fundament. Otherwise, those are just stories told.

Theories don't just tell us about previous things, but make forecasts of future discoveries, too!

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Your choice of words is an indication of a closed mind .

I'm open minded to the possibility of a photon having a small electric charge, and in fact efforts have been made to measure this:

Constraints on the photon charge based on observations of extragalactic sources
This paper describes the measurements used and how the electric charge of a photon was determined.

Now, compare that paper which gives detail on exactly how the photon charge was measured, to the complete drivel written by Uyttendaele which you said was thought provoking. They just arbitrarily declare the photon has a small electric charge, but they don't say how small it is, how they measured it, whether it's above or below the threshold determined in this and other studies, etc.

How can you tell I'm not closed minded? I read their nonsense paper. If I was closed-minded I wouldn't have even read it, but I wanted to see if they found something others had missed. What I found was, they don't even seem to know what others have done to measure the charge of a photon and they seem to have no idea how to measure it.

So my words are not an indication of a closed mind. I'm willing to entertain the possibility a photon might have a small electric charge as are the physicists who make these detailed measurements of such. They are however an indication that I'm not steeped in ignorance and I can recognize when someone makes a claim contradicting previously collected evidence, when they have no evidence to support their claim.

mbkennel
The standard for making progress though is far far higher than the (quite literally) Dunning-Kruegerish ignorant BS from the crackpots; in particular the necessity to link with the extraordinary array of known experimental facts and currently successful and predictive theories commonly accepted for extremely good reasons.

You mean like referring to previous experiments measuring the electric charge of a photon, when one claims they have determined the photon has an electric charge? I agree, the crackpots don't seem to recognize the necessity of doing this, even though it's a pretty basic and fundamental part of the process of advancing our understanding.

If Uyttendaele even made an effort to explain why the previous measurements were flawed and why his measurement method was better, that would be one thing. But he doesn't even address previous measurements, nor provide any measurements of his own to support his claim.

No one's observed fractional charge. So if a photon can carry "tiny charges" (it can't, for more than one reason) it would be a fractional charge. It would be relatively easy to see.

However, a photon is an EM wave. It's an electric field, and a magnetic field, and no means to carry a charge, for neither one of those does. Thus is charge relegated to particles with mass, like electrons and protons.

People long ago discovered that charge was quantized to that of an electron or proton. That wasn't by regurgitation, it was by observation. NO ONE has ever seen "minute charges". You get an entire electron's worth, or a proton's worth, or nada. Besides which, you would pretty quickly detect net charges on anything light hit. You don't.

Bedlam
No one's observed fractional charge. So if a photon can carry "tiny charges" (it can't, for more than one reason) it would be a fractional charge. It would be relatively easy to see.

According to that paper I posted, if the fractional charge was less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000003 of the charge on an electron or equivalent positive charge (if I counted my zeroes right), they might have a hard time seeing it, though they said future measurements were likely to lower that upper limit even further.

But yes, any reasonable fraction would show up in that and other measurements.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


You might reasonably expect a 1/3 charge as a fractional charge if you could get one. A 0.000->3 charge isn't, unless all of physics is screwed. Don't get me wrong, that would be EXCELLENT. But you don't see it. Given the number of photons that land on any surface, you'd see a charge transfer in seconds. You don't. Tout fini. Electric and magnetic fields can't convey charge. You have to have a particle with rest mass to do that.