Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

Bleeeeep
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Sounds like you're both saying that, in a sense, electricity is never created nor destroyed, but is a force unto itself.

Nope. I'm saying there is a definition for an electric field. One that accelerates a unit charge a certain amount. That's what an electric field IS.

If you're getting acceleration proportional to mass and distance in the absence of charge, it's a gravitic field.

Definitions mean something. And in this case, they mean that there is a force called gravity that acts (as far as we know) in a certain way, and that's not the way we describe electric or magnetic fields.

And yes, the electric field is a force 'unto itself' in that it's distinct from the magnetic, gravitic, strong and weak force. If it were the same, it would be easy to tell. It's not the same.

Mary Rose
I think an open mind and curiosity is called for. Gravity needs more definition. Maybe it has to do with matter but not in the way we've thought.

From Wal Thornhill's "Electric Gravity":

I had to look pretty hard to find something I could agree with Wal Thornhill about, but I did find something.

He says this about his website:
www.holoscience.com...

It requires a beginner’s mind and a broad forensic approach to knowledge that is not taught in any university.

I do agree that his website requires a beginner's mind, because anybody who is not a beginner will already be aware of lots of evidence which contradicts his ideas, and will also be aware that science is not taught in universities the way Thornhill claims.

I don't think you appreciate the fact that as university students studying this material, we didn't just accept what the professors told us. We worked in laboratories and were required to conduct our own experiments, collect our own data, and come to our own conclusions based on these experimental results.

So the whole premise Wal Thornhill portrays of people who just parrot what they've been taught is completely false, and only beginners who haven't been through this educational process of conducting their own laboratory experiments would believe his lies about the way science education works.

As ErosA433 pointed out earlier in this thread:

ErosA433
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.

So Wal Thornhill is absolutely right that it does take a beginners mind to not appreciate the true facts about how science education works, which in the experience of ErosA433, myself and I'm sure many others means being taught to think for ourselves and to question everything.

About electricity and gravity, NASA funded a study as recently as 2004 trying to explore what some thought demonstrated a relationship where electricity seemed to create a sort of "anti-gravity effect". Upon completion of the study the observed relationship was explained and did not point to any electrical properties of gravity.

Electrogravitics

NASA funded a study[6] in 2004 entitled "Asymmetrical Capacitors for Propulsion" in which it created a simple ion drift model wherein ions drift "... from one electrode to the other under electrostatic forces, and imparting momentum to air as they underwent multiple collisions." The report concludes that "... the ion drift model explains how a thrust is developed by ions pushing on air" and that there was no evidence to support "...new physical principles being responsible for the thrust" produced in lifters.

So once again we simply did not not find that gravity is related to electricity. It's not like we haven't looked. As Thornhill points out the idea of a relationship between gravity and electricity is old. Many people have explored this idea, so contrary to Thornhill's claims I don't see any lack of interest in the subject, but rather there was intense interest in the subject, it was explored, and the idea never bore any fruit which could be confirmed experimentally.

Bedlam


Actually, as it moves down the hill it loses gravitational potential energy. The equation for that is mgh, as h becomes less, the potential energy decreases. So you're converting gpe to mechanical kinetic energy.

This, by the way, is what that Italian crankshaft travesty doesn't work. mgh is symmetric. It's the same going down as coming up. There's no hope of going down releasing more energy than the upstroke side. It's identical.

Yes but if the rock itself did no work getting to the top of the hill, it is a free ride down for it, it is given potential and kinetic energy by the existence of gravity. The only reason it had potential energy was because of gravity, gravity is only taking away energy in hindsight, when it eliminates the energy it gave it in the first place, as the rock comes to rest at the bottom of the well.

What if there are possible mechanisms to give it a boost on the upstroke, im sure creativity could come up with multiple. Stuff that stretches, stuff that springs, magnets, gears idk, but im sure people that are clever can figure it out, if you cant figure it out...well I guess we know what that means then.

reply to post by Bedlam


So electricity and magnetism mainly has to do with electrons. And matter is mainly protons and neutrons (by mass right?), and they still have electric charge included in their makeup, and so they are mainly responsible for gravity right?

ImaFungi

Bedlam


Actually, as it moves down the hill it loses gravitational potential energy. The equation for that is mgh, as h becomes less, the potential energy decreases. So you're converting gpe to mechanical kinetic energy.

This, by the way, is what that Italian crankshaft travesty doesn't work. mgh is symmetric. It's the same going down as coming up. There's no hope of going down releasing more energy than the upstroke side. It's identical.

Yes but if the rock itself did no work getting to the top of the hill, it is a free ride down for it, it is given potential and kinetic energy by the existence of gravity. The only reason it had potential energy was because of gravity, gravity is only taking away energy in hindsight, when it eliminates the energy it gave it in the first place, as the rock comes to rest at the bottom of the well.

What if there are possible mechanisms to give it a boost on the upstroke, im sure creativity could come up with multiple. Stuff that stretches, stuff that springs, magnets, gears idk, but im sure people that are clever can figure it out, if you cant figure it out...well I guess we know what that means then.

The rock got to the top of the mountain in a process called upwelling where the earths crust buckles this takes a considerable amount of energy. thats why it was stored as potential energy. Now for gravity problem it takes as much energy on the upstroke as it does on the down stroke. Even by supplementing energy which can be done you are simply exchanging one form of energy for another.Your not gaining anything as i said you cant create energy it has to all ready be there.

reply to post by dragonridr


Ok so the only free energy devices possible are using constant influxing phenomenon of nature like solar, wind, water, I guess technically you can say harnessing energy from ocean waves is gravity powered?

ImaFungi
reply to post by Bedlam

 

So electricity and magnetism mainly has to do with electrons. And matter is mainly protons and neutrons (by mass right?), and they still have electric charge included in their makeup, and so they are mainly responsible for gravity right?

No mass is the weight of the particle but lets go down the rabbit hole a little further. In physics you can say mass is directly related to the speed of an object. We start with the higss field this is what gives a particle mass.So now here is the crazy part what is the defining feature of a mass less particle? Its traveling at the speed of light if a particle has no mass theres nothing to slow it down and instantly will travel at the speed of light.Or put another way a mass less particle has to travel at the speed of light its impossible for it not to.So what is mass the property of not having to travel at the speed of light.now this mans a particle with mass cant reach the speed of light as we know through relativity.

But a particle can travel any speed it wants below the speed of light if it has mass. So what is mass how slowly these particles can change from one speed to another. Isnt physics a strange world? Now it gets weirder Even particles with mass are traveling at the speed of light but they are interacting with the higs field causing them to bounce back and forth continually bouncing off the higgs field. So what we perceive as a particle moving slower then light is a particle bouncing back and forth off the higgs field and this is why th e average has the particle moving below the speed of light because the distance it travels is increased.Ill attempt an analogy we have to people on a tennis court hitting a ball back and forth with special rackets that alow the ball to move at the speed of light. If we have one person serve the ball and the other not return it we can say wow that moved at the speed of light. But now are second player comes in returns the ball and again the first player hits it back again. Now this time the ball went further and if we look at the time it took for the ball to go the same distance it moved slower then light. But the key is it didnt it just had a longer path to take.This is hard to explain but feel free to ask questions because thats easier then trying to explain.

ImaFungi
reply to post by Bedlam

 

So electricity and magnetism mainly has to do with electrons. And matter is mainly protons and neutrons (by mass right?), and they still have electric charge included in their makeup, and so they are mainly responsible for gravity right?

No mass is the weight of the particle but lets go down the rabbit hole a little further. In physics you can say mass is directly related to the speed of an object. We start with the higss field this is what gives a particle mass.So now here is the crazy part what is the defining feature of a mass less particle? Its traveling at the speed of light if a particle has no mass theres nothing to slow it down and instantly will travel at the speed of light.Or put another way a mass less particle has to travel at the speed of light its impossible for it not to.So what is mass the property of not having to travel at the speed of light.now this mans a particle with mass cant reach the speed of light as we know through relativity.

But a particle can travel any speed it wants below the speed of light if it has mass. So what is mass how slowly these particles can change from one speed to another. Isnt physics a strange world? Now it gets weirder Even particles with mass are traveling at the speed of light but they are interacting with the higs field causing them to bounce back and forth continually bouncing off the higgs field. So what we perceive as a particle moving slower then light is a particle bouncing back and forth off the higgs field and this is why th e average has the particle moving below the speed of light because the distance it travels is increased.Ill attempt an analogy we have to people on a tennis court hitting a ball back and forth with special rackets that alow the ball to move at the speed of light. If we have one person serve the ball and the other not return it we can say wow that moved at the speed of light. But now are second player comes in returns the ball and again the first player hits it back again. Now this time the ball went further and if we look at the time it took for the ball to go the same distance it moved slower then light. But the key is it didnt it just had a longer path to take.This is hard to explain but feel free to ask questions because thats easier then trying to explain.

So the Higs boson doesnt create mass it creates resistance making a particle of light appear to be slower because its bouncing around. The average is what we see as the speed of the particle.

dragonridr

Lets see if i can explain this we are inside the suns gravity well the earth is constantly falling towards the sun. However luckily for us centrifugal force is countering that free fall.

Wrong. The curvature of the sun keeps us in free fall and not the centrifugal force

Angelic Resurrection

dragonridr

Lets see if i can explain this we are inside the suns gravity well the earth is constantly falling towards the sun. However luckily for us centrifugal force is countering that free fall.

Wrong. The curvature of the sun keeps us in free fall and not the centrifugal force

Wrong picture a funnel and you have a marble you can make the marble stay in the funnel as long as its moving fast enough not to drop to the center. Gravity wells are exactly like that They are depressions in space time so just like those things that cause pennies to spin around a funnel those same forces stop the earth from traveling straight to the sun. The speed of the earth causes it to stay within the gravity well riding the walls if you will. Lets say we remove the sun the earth will travel along a straight course unchanged. But the mass causes this gravity well making the earth travel in a circular path. Stranger still lets look at the shuttle people think its weightless because there is no gravity in orbit right? Well not true the moon is held by earths gravity and its further away. So why is the shuttle weightless then well its falling towards the earth but gravity has made it take a circular path instead of a direct path.So just like the vomit comet the plane simulates no gravity by free falling back to earth effectively the shuttle is doing the same thing.

reply to post by ImaFungi


gravity could be a neutral charge that doesn't react to anything with its charge beyond having gravity, thus it isn't thought to have an electrical charge. and if something can't be seen and it doesn't react (cant see its force) then it doesn't exist to science.

you will get fussed at for saying free energy because free energy doesn't mean free. it means energy that can be taken from a field/form. to my knowledge there is no field you can convert to 100% energy except maybe antimatter and matter coming into contact, but capturing all the energy would prove to be difficult without loss of energy into other forms. and of course there isn't any such thing as more than 100% energy of a field/system...

you are kind of talking about perpetual motion, and the universe itself may not even be perpetual if energy came from some other universe or something. and i'm sure you heard that it seems to be spreading out faster than we could dream of catching the end of it as well, so we may never be able to obtain perpetual unless there is a big crunch.

technically though, all energy is free since we don't create it...

if you just want to produce more energy than is contained within the parts of the energy producing mechanism itself, then there is lots of things you can make, but producing more energy than the fuel and the mechanism contained is theoretically impossible. maybe we could one day cheat a little and tear a hole in space and still some energy from the 4th-11th dimensions from dr who or something?

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Ok so the only free energy devices possible are using constant influxing phenomenon of nature like solar, wind, water, I guess technically you can say harnessing energy from ocean waves is gravity powered?

"Free energy" as you're using it in the pseudoscientific sense doesn't exist. If you mean energy, just say energy.

Free Energy

In pseudoscience:

Free energy device
-a hypothetical perpetual motion device that creates energy, thereby contradicting the laws of thermodynamics
-a device of which a controversial claim is made that it taps an unconventional energy source not regarded as viable by the scientific community at large

Wind and wave power are powered ultimately by the sun. Tidal power extracts energy from the gravitational interaction between the Earth and moon, primarily, which isn't quite the same as wave power.

Nuclear fission is one source of energy that doesn't rely on the sun, both the naturally occurring type that keeps the Earth from cooling so fast, and the artificial type used in Fukushima to generate electricity. That disaster alone may cost 100 billion dollars to clean up, so I wouldn't call it "free" energy.

reply to post by dragonridr


Hm, all those fields that react at the speed of light that are seemingly immaterial yet coupled with mass containing material, must just hint at some underlying nature of the construction and fundamental constitution of the universe. That there are fields which carry and sense motions from mass/matter and these motions are carried through the fields at an exact speed, no more no less under average conditions. Material being so fundamentally different in nature to these force carrying fields, cannot move in the same way the fields can, just as maybe you can put a bunch of ice cubes in water and make waves and make them make waves, and the waves will always travel faster then the ice cubes, though when a wave contacts an ice cube it will impart a little of its energy onto it. but ehhh idk if thats a good analogy.

How does einsteins equation E=Mc^2 play into this, in the way that multiplying the value of the speed of light, that rate at which a field is forced to ripple or react to a charge coupled disturbance, by the rest mass of a mass, will result in the total energy content of that mass. Why is it that the value of the speed of light (squared for that matter) has this significant relationship with mass and energy? Like you were saying with mass is material traveling slower then light or whatever, is the equation saying that if you took the energy value contained in an area of radiation and 'square rooted' its speed, you would be creating mass from 'pure energy'? And is this potentially what occurs with vacuum fluctuations and 'particles popping in and out of existence'? And does this mean the most fundamental nature of nature is field based, mass based, material based, energy based, speed of light based? Or could it be that it is a sum or a multiplication of all those factors, Some higher nature, which was divided, and the current nature, fields, energy, speed limit, is the divided result of some unknowable whole?

I didnt really get your tennis analogy, but I think it might be similar to time dilation and stuff, and why a space ship traveling at a velocity turning its headlights on, the light from the headlights isnt going the speed of light + the velocity in the momentum of the spaceship?

And about the higgs field, if the big bang idea is true, I dont know inflation or explosion, if you think about explosion, material heading away from a common point because of a major release of energy, think about on earth, if we made an explosion in a bit of sand, how big of an explosion would we have to make to cause the grains of sand to travel approaching C? Its the same with everything, it requires energy, to move energy, so if the big bang occurred, and material was made we couldnt expect the material to travel faster then the immaterial field which contains the material, and which is uber sensitive to the materials movements. So it is no wonder that there is a speed limit, because in what kind of set up of a universe could we imagine setting an object in motion and it increasingly accelerates with no end? Also it is a wonder why and how fields exist, what they are, how and why they were made. Could a universe exist without force carrying fields. Could just objects of material like particles, burst into existence and then just travel on. If the total energy content of the universe was split in half, at/before the big bang could this have changed the speed limit of light or the nature of EM field? Same question as if the total energy was doubled?

reply to post by ImaFungi


I will search fora video people all ways understand better seeing it however ill try to explain again. So lets define what mass is or better no mass. If a particle has no mass like a photon for example (though not the only one). A photon cannot do anything but travel at the speed of light. The very fact it is mass less means it will travel at the speed of light. So if you suddenly had every particle in your body go to zero mass they would all streak off at the speed of light.So now lets define mass it is actually the resistance a particle has to having its speed changed.So lets say we have a guy throwing a ball you feel the resistance as you throw it because your trying to change its speed.Now lets say we have a field like oh lets say the Higgs field. This field is through out the entire galaxy. Its job is to create that resistance to particles trying to change there speed. Imagine trying to throw that same ball underwater the water will provide resistance making it very hard to throw. The Higgs field is like the water its there impeding the ball from moving forward. If this field didnt exist then every particle in the universe would be instantly traveling at the speed of light and oddly there would be no mass just a lot of energy. Now to answer another question you had mentioned energy. We can impart energy to create mass or mass to create energy. But whats happening to the particle when we impart energy it moves faster and its mass decreases.Or if it looses energy like a ball flying through the air it gains mass and looses energy and drops to the earth.

So what im trying to explain is simply this how much mass a particle has is directly related to how fast the particle is actually moving.Problem is with physics you have to be able to see it in your mind and its hard to describe but physics lives off analogies. Thats why an entire class can just talking about one particle interaction and alot of questions and answers. Thats why its easier to explain with questions because you can gauge what there perception is.Wow just realized used the word gauge while explaining this and we didnt even mention gauge symmetry sorry personal joke.

reply to post by dragonridr


K, well you say when an object travels faster, it loses mass, I thought it gained 'reletivistic mass' which is the idea of E=mc^2, which you ignored my question about that equation.

The thing I dont get about the higgs field, in order to resist particles, is the higgs field energy or matter? Does the higgs field have mass?

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

K, well you say when an object travels faster, it loses mass, I thought it gained 'reletivistic mass' which is the idea of E=mc^2, which you ignored my question about that equation.

The thing I dont get about the higgs field, in order to resist particles, is the higgs field energy or matter? Does the higgs field have mass?

The closer a particle gets towards the speed of light the more friction that occurs remember i was describing the friction the higgs field produces the more you try to change a particles speed the more energy that is required. In relativity relativistic mass is mass standing still or in other words not in motion. We can use this to determine the total energy potential. Its not about anything getting heavier. E=mc^2 is merely an equation we can use to convert mass into energy or energy into mass. According to Einstein an object with mass cant reach the speed of light the reason is there isnt enough energy for it to do so.This goes back to the laws of thermodynamics you cant get more energy because energy cant be created.

Now the higgs field ill start by saying watch this video it give you a general idea of what the Higgs field is and what it does though doesnt explain why which i can get in to later.



Came back to add this video i figured cern would try to explain the higgs field and i found there video.here it is

reply to post by dragonridr


"the relativistic mass (of a body or system of bodies) includes a contribution from the "net" kinetic energy of the body (the kinetic energy of the center of mass of the body), and is larger the faster the body moves"

Ill watch the vids, but you said the faster an object moves the lower its mass is. And you said relativistic mass is rest mass. Relativistic mass is the opposite of rest mass, it is rest mass including the masses kinetic energy, additional kinetic energy added to a rest mass, means that its mass increases a la E=mc^2.

Are you not understanding my question about E=Mc2 or are you not sure of the answer?

If you watched the videos maybe you can tell me the only thing I want to know about the higgs field; Mass is the known 'stuff' that allows resistance to exist, higgs field is the invented solution to explain how mass exists, it is said to causes 'stuff' to resit traveling at light speed...Does the higgs field itself have mass? If so how does the higgs field get mass interacting with another higgs field, higgs fields all the way down? If not, how does something that has no mass, cause 'something that has no mass until it is somehow given mass by something that also has no mass' do...mass stuff?

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr

 

"the relativistic mass (of a body or system of bodies) includes a contribution from the "net" kinetic energy of the body (the kinetic energy of the center of mass of the body), and is larger the faster the body moves"

Ill watch the vids, but you said the faster an object moves the lower its mass is. And you said relativistic mass is rest mass. Relativistic mass is the opposite of rest mass, it is rest mass including the masses kinetic energy, additional kinetic energy added to a rest mass, means that its mass increases a la E=mc^2.

Are you not understanding my question about E=Mc2 or are you not sure of the answer?

If you watched the videos maybe you can tell me the only thing I want to know about the higgs field; Mass is the known 'stuff' that allows resistance to exist, higgs field is the invented solution to explain how mass exists, it is said to causes 'stuff' to resit traveling at light speed...Does the higgs field itself have mass? If so how does the higgs field get mass interacting with another higgs field, higgs fields all the way down? If not, how does something that has no mass, cause 'something that has no mass until it is somehow given mass by something that also has no mass' do...mass stuff?

your saying the same thing just not realizing it relativistic mass is mass at a state of rest. This allows us to calculate potential energy like i all ready said. Mass doesnt increase with speed because we have to balance it out the faster something moves the lower its mass. The reason being is mass is caused by trying to change the speed of a particle. And no the higs field doesnt have mass its virtual particles have no spin. Do you understand virtual particles? These particles pop in and out of existence everywhere problem is particle is not exactly the correct term.A virtual particle is not a particle at all its more a disturbance in a field.

So lets start with the higgs effect everything in the universe will move to its lowest energy state. Remember your rock analogy a rock falls from a cliff it releases part of its potential energy as kinetic energy it is attempting to get to its lowest energy state. Its potential energy is the distance it is from the center of the earth.Now the universe is filled with this potential energy even in empty space vacuums have energy.This is the reason the universe continues to accelerate. So the higgs field has potential energy and when a lepton or a quark goes through the field it gains energy from the field this is called breaking symmetry,which is the lowest energy state possible. So this lepton just gained energy but what to do with it well Einstein answered that question turn it in to mass. With increased mass the particle slows down and travels below the speed of light. As i said earlier every particle in the universe would have 0 mass and whiz around at the speed of light. Its the interaction with the Higgs field providing energy to the particle which converts it into mass. Now for the particle to continue at the speed of light it needs more energy. Same as throwing a baseball though the air or under water to get them to travel the same distance you need a lot more force underwater. Now back to one of your questions and this is where the Higgs boson comes in this is whats actually creating the disturbance when a quark passes through the higgs field. Without it we have a photon particle. This is whats receiving that energy and converting it to mass.

So we determined mass is simply increased drag on the higgs field the particle doesnt get bigger.So the one true law of the universe is fields and how they effect particles. These overlapping fields would be what Einstein called space time.

reply to post by dragonridr


Why are photons, or mass-less images/forms, not just strings/waves with their own orbit/convection path? And mass is strings within another string's orbit/convection path?

If the above were accepted you would be able to view mass as the resistance caused by the internal pressure created from a strings' minimum density as governed by the energy of the inner strings.

Then we can solve things easily like:
Gravity is the force caused by the convection paths of strings/waves as they force mass to the center of a larger convection path byway of pressure or the energetic gain of strings around them. This solves for all nuclei, planets, solar systems, sub-atomic particles within particles, and all that.

Charge/magnetism is the convection path created as negative(counter clock wise) and positive(clockwise) convection paths force strings out from between their convection paths thus drawing one another towards themselves, byway of electrical convection paths or an electrons'/proton's convection path and a conductive convection path.

Vacuum/space fabric would be highly energetic exterior strings but low inner-string density, thus causing entropy (the high energy of a person for example) to be transferred to the low inner density strings within higher energetic space strings/wave forms. Think of it like you suck all the air out of a vacuum chamber. You are left with few particles that have high energy convection paths but low density.

And I could go on and on easily explaining things like that if I'm allowed the first 2 sentences and their effect to basically be nothing more than thermoelectric convection or wave-particle duality from wave up to galaxy. Wave is the natural state and particle is energetic waves which succumb to entropy and revert back to wave when possible.

Spiritually, it's the Word of God given energy/will by The Spirit and BEcoming the image of God or Body of Christ or bodies/images and then reverting back to Word/wave form as the spirit that creates Body leaves a Word.

Is this totally impossible?

Mary Rose
I think gravity is a push not a pull and it's the pressure of the ether causing the push.

I like this paper written by a layman based on his research into the writings of scientists. The link is to a 24 page pdf file: "The Cause of Gravity."

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes a physical explanation for the cause of gravity. The proposal is built upon
two fundamental postulates: (1) the existence of aether as a sub-atomic substance; and (2) the
absorption of aether by atoms. The explanation which the paper offers for the cause of gravity is
that the absorption of aether by atoms causes a flow of aether towards the atoms (e.g., the Earth)
and the flowing aether exerts momentum upon any matter in its path. The result is gravity.
In addition, this paper suggests that the above concept provides an explanation for dark matter,
dark energy and other phenomena.