ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th January 2017, 09:28 AM   #41
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,194
Over in the Thunderdolts Forum, there is a thread entitled "Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation" (link).

Several, quite simple and straight-forward, tests of this, um, idea have been put forward by members (I particularly like the one where charging a thin metallic foil should cause it to levitate). While YMMV, it seems to me that quite a few EU fans are rather dismayed by it; disagreeing with michaelsuade ("I believe Thornhill's theory of gravity is correct").
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:47 AM   #42
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,194
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
By the way ...

If 'michaelsuede' is sure that electrical production/presence can alter the value of G, then that should be a relatively easy thing to test for.

After all, there is portable equipment which can be used to measure G so just take that equipment near some high power electrical lines, or near a power plant, or near an electrical substation and see what the value of G is and compare it to the published value.
There's also the fact that the local value of g (not G; gravitometers measure g) seems rather stable, whether measured locally or by a pair of satellites in orbit (e.g. GRACE); per michaelsuade, these should vary quite widely ... thunderstorms, power lines, aurorae, even the daily tides (not to mention the varying electrical environment the GRACE satellites travel through).

More generally, there are all those tests of General Relativity (GR) which also provide many independent tests of the constancy of G (and of any EU ideas re gravity), such as APOLLO, LAGEOS, Gravity Probe B, to name just a few.

Re use of GR instead of Newton for space probe navigation etc: I know that in the GAIA planning stage, modelling was done to see if stationkeeping (etc) required GR (to determine the spacecraft's attitude, for example); I think it was concluded that it was not. Of course, GR is essential in data analysis, to account for the deviations in arrival direction of light from stars (etc), caused by the mass of the Sun, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:56 AM   #43
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,194
Originally Posted by RussDill View Post
Can we just merge this with ' Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)'?
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
When you're measuring G, you're taking a proxy measurement of the strength of the charge, so the variance is minuscule here on Earth.

However, since G is not universal, the variance on other planetary systems that are undergoing a massive discharge or accumulating charge will be far greater. This is why comet directions can vary, and why comets appear to be made out of fluff according to their mass, while looking like solid boulders of burned rock. Their mass is being altered by the electrical discharge they are undergoing.
(my bold)

Thread merger might be a good idea, but I think there's an older and more appropriate prior EU thread (which I can't find just now ).

michaelsuade, I recommend that you read the ISF thread RussDill cites (and its ancestor); "electrical discharges" in/from comets seem to be a persistent figment of the imagination of some EU zealots, after years of dedicated work on observations of comets, no one has been able to present objective, independently verifiable evidence that they actually exist.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:44 AM   #44
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 10,635
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Well Ziggurat, I guess we have to disagree. I don't believe you can wash over the problems presented with reference frames. That's basically a mathematical way of ignoring the whole system and instead treating each component as if it was in its own independent universe. Sure, you can get a mathematically correct answer by doing that, but that doesn't mean it represents reality in anyway. And Van Flandern is not wrong about the speed of gravity.
You do not know what you are talking about.
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:53 AM   #45
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,390
Well JeanTate, thanks for your authoritative commentary, but I think I'll stick with that the science says.
michaelsuede is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 11:03 AM   #46
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
Originally Posted by RussDill View Post
Can we just merge this with ' Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)'?
Might as well, since MS seems to be pushing it that way.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 11:13 AM   #47
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,390
Electric comets and electric gravity are related, as is everything under a unified theory, but they are pretty distinct topics.
michaelsuede is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:08 PM   #48
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 16,933
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Well JeanTate, thanks for your authoritative commentary, but I think I'll stick with that the science says.
Unfortunately for you, it doesn't say what you think it says.
__________________
After a while you can work on points for style
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 12:56 PM   #49
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 36,809
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Well Ziggurat, I guess we have to disagree. I don't believe you can wash over the problems presented with reference frames. That's basically a mathematical way of ignoring the whole system and instead treating each component as if it was in its own independent universe. Sure, you can get a mathematically correct answer by doing that, but that doesn't mean it represents reality in anyway.
You missed the point: even if you do the calculations the hard way, you still get the same answer (if you do it right). Again, the field of a moving charge (electrical or gravitational) is different from the field of a stationary charge. It isn't simply the field of a stationary charge at its delayed position. That's not washing anything under the table, that's doing it right.

Quote:
And Van Flandern is not wrong about the speed of gravity.
He absolutely is wrong, and obviously so. His reasoning applies to electric fields too (imagine two opposite charges in orbit around each other), where the finite propagation speed is more obvious since we literally see the results. And those results prove him wrong.

Quote:
GR really doesn't have any meaning to it. It's just a mathematical description.
That doesn't matter. It is an accurate description, and alternatives (such as Van Flandern) are not. You cannot ask for more from any scientific theory than accuracy.

Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Well JeanTate, thanks for your authoritative commentary, but I think I'll stick with that the science says.
But you aren't. You're discarding what science says, in favor of clueless pseudo-science from people who couldn't calculate their way out of a wet paper bag.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:14 PM   #50
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,217
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I believe Thornhill's theory of gravity is correct.
Hi michaelsuede, citing Wallace Thornhill is bad because he is a very deluded crank with a record of lying. The Electric Universe is almost a cult with the "prophets" of David Talbot and Wallace Thornhill. One delusion that they have is that comets are rocks and there is a 7 year long thread with their followers denying the real facts about comets such as a density less than water. That lead to the discovery of Thornhill's lies on the Thunderbolts web site:
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:19 PM   #51
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 10,635
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Well JeanTate, thanks for your authoritative commentary, but I think I'll stick with that the science says.
Well, ...

Since you have ignored what science has to say in favor of what you want to believe, then it would be most appreciated if you would stick to what the science says.
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:27 PM   #52
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,217
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Van Flandern did a tremendous amount of work on this. He came to rather different conclusions.
An outdated reference is not as large a display of ignorance of gravitation as believing the crank Wallace Thornhill's denial of science (not his theory of gravity - his support of the delusion that gravity is electrical), michaelsuede.

But you need to learn the current measured speed of gravity:
Quote:
...Disputed indirect measurements supporting a speed of c and then...
Direct measurements of gravitational waves
The first direct observation of gravitational waves, from the merger of a pair of black holes, on 14 September 2015 (announced by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations on 11 February 2016[27][28][29]), allowed a more direct measurement of their speed. The extent of any deviation of the speed of gravitational waves (vg) from the speed of light (c) can be parameterized in terms of the mass of the hypothetical graviton. The graviton is an elementary particle that plays the role of force carrier in quantum theories about gravity, and is expected to be massless. If it was not massless, gravitational waves would propagate below lightspeed, with lower frequencies (ƒ) being slower than higher frequencies, leading to dispersion of the waves from the merger event.[30] No such dispersion was observed.[30][31] The observations of the inspiral give an upper limit on the mass of the graviton of 2.1×10−58 kg, corresponding to 1.2×10−22 eV/c2 or a Compton wavelength (λg) of greater than 1013 km, roughly 1 light-year.[27][30] Using the lowest observed wave frequency of 35 Hz, this translates to a lower limit on vg such that the upper limit on 1-vg /c is ~ 4×10−19.[note 1]
Speed of gravity
Quote:
Newtonian gravitation
Isaac Newton's formulation of a gravitational force law requires that each particle with mass respond instantaneously to every other particle with mass irrespective of the distance between them. In modern terms, Newtonian gravitation is described by the Poisson equation, according to which, when the mass distribution of a system changes, its gravitational field instantaneously adjusts. Therefore, the theory assumes the speed of gravity to be infinite. This assumption was adequate to account for all phenomena with the observational accuracy of that time. It was not until the 19th century that an anomaly in astronomical observations which could not be reconciled with the Newtonian gravitational model of instantaneous action was noted: the French astronomer Urbain Le Verrier determined in 1859 that the elliptical orbit of Mercury precesses at a significantly different rate from that predicted by Newtonian theory.[3]

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th January 2017 at 01:28 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:34 PM   #53
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,390
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You missed the point: even if you do the calculations the hard way, you still get the same answer (if you do it right). Again, the field of a moving charge (electrical or gravitational) is different from the field of a stationary charge. It isn't simply the field of a stationary charge at its delayed position. That's not washing anything under the table, that's doing it right.

He absolutely is wrong, and obviously so. His reasoning applies to electric fields too (imagine two opposite charges in orbit around each other), where the finite propagation speed is more obvious since we literally see the results. And those results prove him wrong.
Van Flandern's argument has no bearing on electric fields. He's not arguing the speed of light or electricity, he's strictly arguing gravity. Subatomic particles like electrons are completely dominated by electromagnetic forces. Gravity does not cause electrons to orbit each other.

It's like you didn't even bother to read his paper before commenting. It's not even worth arguing with you if you can't even be bothered to know what you're arguing about. I may as well be debating a bot or a wall.

Last edited by michaelsuede; 11th January 2017 at 01:37 PM.
michaelsuede is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:40 PM   #54
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 10,635
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Electric comets and electric gravity are related, as is everything under a unified theory, but they are pretty distinct topics.
Indeed!

There were 'electric comets' and 'electric gravity' on the famous film Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo.
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:52 PM   #55
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,194
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
(my bold)

Thread merger might be a good idea, but I think there's an older and more appropriate prior EU thread (which I can't find just now ).

michaelsuade, I recommend that you read the ISF thread RussDill cites (and its ancestor); "electrical discharges" in/from comets seem to be a persistent figment of the imagination of some EU zealots, after years of dedicated work on observations of comets, no one has been able to present objective, independently verifiable evidence that they actually exist.
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Electric comets and electric gravity are related, as is everything under a unified theory, but they are pretty distinct topics.
Indeed.

Which is why I recommend that this thread be merged with one of these (my preference is for the first):

Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity | EU2015

"NASA Pseudo-skeptic Receives Rebuttal from Electric Universe Theorist"

Electric universe theories here.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 01:56 PM   #56
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,217
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Electric comets and electric gravity are related, ....
They are related in that they are physically impossible delusions proposed by ignorant physics cranks, michaelsuede.

The electric comet delusion is vaguely stated but is that in historic times Venus (possibly after erupting from Jupiter) and the Earth got close enough to exchange magical electrical discharges. This blasted rocks into the solar system - removing thousands of cubic kilometers of surface from the Earth surface but let us ignore the extinction of life on Earth ! Those rocks are the comets we have been observing and have landed a probe on one. We have overwhelming evidence that they are made of ices and dust, e.g. the Deep Impact impact ejected dust and water, we have traced jets on 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko to fractured cliffs and pits, etc.

The electric gravity delusion is denial of electromagnetism and gravity. You must know that electric charges come in 2 varieties, michaelsuede. It is high school science that the force of a single charge (not a system of multiple charges) does have the same form as Newtonian gravitation (an inverse square law). As soon as there are more changes the inverse square law tends to vanish, e.g. look at the field of a dipole.

There is the minor fact that as far as we can tell every positive charge is balanced by a negative charge. So electromagnetic forces generally are zero beyond certain scales. They are zero outside of solids, liquids and gases. They are zero a few Debye lengths outside of plasmas.

The electric field of a conducting sphere is also an inverse square law. But astronomical bodies are not perfect spheres or even that conducting. For example we know that Earths magnetic field is very good at shifting charges around an oblate spheroid surface.

Last edited by Reality Check; 11th January 2017 at 01:59 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 02:02 PM   #57
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,747
If "G" varied "all over the place". correct me if I am wrong but the universe would not be as it is, including harbouring life itself.

Then again if one just invents a brand spanky new physics then that doesn't matter much does it?
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 02:04 PM   #58
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,194
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Well JeanTate, thanks for your authoritative commentary,
You're welcome.

Quote:
but I think I'll stick with that the science says.
Hmm ... OK.

Let's start here then:
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Well Ziggurat, I guess we have to disagree. I don't believe you can wash over the problems presented with reference frames.
Rather revealing?

This is the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the ISF. Where objectivity reigns, not belief. Where independent verification rules. Etc.

Do you have anything like that which you can present?
Quote:
That's basically a mathematical way of ignoring the whole system and instead treating each component as if it was in its own independent universe. Sure, you can get a mathematically correct answer by doing that, but that doesn't mean it represents reality in anyway.
The Philosophy section is that way ->

Here we deal with what can be demonstrated objectively, in an independently verifiable way.

Quote:
And Van Flandern is not wrong about the speed of gravity.
His published ideas can be independently checked (at least to some extent). And as Ziggurat has already noted, they don't pan out, not least in that there are fatal flaws in his mathematics (or, alternatively, that the 'theory of gravity' he is describing is inconsistent with objective observations).

Quote:
GR really doesn't have any meaning to it. It's just a mathematical description.
Like Thornhill's ideas about "electric gravity" if only he'd address the mathematical description part?

Last edited by JeanTate; 11th January 2017 at 02:25 PM. Reason: typo
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 02:09 PM   #59
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,194
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Van Flandern's argument has no bearing on electric fields. He's not arguing the speed of light or electricity, he's strictly arguing gravity.
Are you sure?

Would you please state the key axioms (assumptions) which "Van Flandern's argument" is based on?

Quote:
Subatomic particles like electrons are completely dominated by electromagnetic forces.
Really?

Except for neutrinos (and antineutrinos) I guess. And the Z boson. And ...

Last edited by JeanTate; 11th January 2017 at 02:24 PM. Reason: typo
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 02:21 PM   #60
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,217
And we have to ask michaelsuede why the positive charges of protons in nuclei does not make nuclei explode if "Subatomic particles like electrons are completely dominated by electromagnetic forces" !

The answer of course is that he is wrong - the nuclear force exists between protons and neutrons to stabilize nuclei.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 02:44 PM   #61
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,217
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Van Flandern did a tremendous amount of work on this. He came to rather different conclusions.
The citation is to a 1998 letter in Physics Review Letters A and was outdated by 2001 which anyone who looks at the literature can determine.The speed of gravity — What the experiments say
Quote:
Laboratory, solar system, and astrophysical experiments for the “speed of gravity” yield a lower limit of 2 × 1010c.
By 2001 we have the measurement of the speed of gravity from pulsar measurements to c within 1%.
C. Will (2001). "The confrontation between general relativity and experiment". Living Rev. Relativity. 4: 4. arXiv:gr-qc/0103036
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 03:01 PM   #62
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,194
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The citation is to a 1998 letter in Physics Review Letters A and was outdated by 2001 which anyone who looks at the literature can determine.The speed of gravity — What the experiments say


By 2001 we have the measurement of the speed of gravity from pulsar measurements to c within 1%.
C. Will (2001). "The confrontation between general relativity and experiment". Living Rev. Relativity. 4: 4. arXiv:gr-qc/0103036
Some links/references which may be of interest:

The Speed of Gravity – What the Experiments Say (van Flandern's Physics Letters A paper, for free)

Aberration and the Speed of Gravity (this is the arXiv version), Carlip (1999); abstract:
Originally Posted by Carlip
The observed absence of gravitational aberration requires that ``Newtonian'' gravity propagate at a speed cg>2×1010c. By evaluating the gravitational effect of an accelerating mass, I show that aberration in general relativity is almost exactly canceled by velocity-dependent interactions, permitting cg=c. This cancellation is dictated by conservation laws and the quadrupole nature of gravitational radiation.
Propagation Speed of Gravity and the Relativistic Time Delay (ditto), Will (2003); abstract:

Originally Posted by Will
We calculate the delay in the propagation of a light signal past a massive body that moves with speed v, under the assumption that the speed of propagation of the gravitational interaction c_g differs from that of light. Using the post-Newtonian approximation, we consider an expansion in powers of v/c beyond the leading ``Shapiro'' time delay effect, while working to first order only in Gm/c^2, and show that the altered propagation speed of the gravitational signal has no effect whatsoever on the time delay to first order in v/c beyond the leading term, although it will have an effect to second and higher order. We show that the only other possible effects of an altered speed c_g at this order arise from a modification of the parametrized post-Newtonian (PPN) coefficient \alpha_1 of the metric from the value zero predicted by general relativity. Current solar-system measurements already provide tight bounds on such a modification. We conclude that recent measurements of the propagation of radio signals past Jupiter are sensitive to \alpha_1, but are not directly sensitive to the speed of propagation of gravity.
Formal analogies between gravitation and electrodynamics (ditto), Goulart & Falciano (2008); abstract:

Originally Posted by Goulart&Falciano
We develop a theoretical framework that allows us to compare electromagnetism and gravitation in a fully covariant way. This new scenario does not rely on any kind of approximation nor associate objects with different operational meaning as it's sometime done in the literature. We construct the electromagnetic analogue to the Riemann and Weyl tensors and develop the equations of motion for these objects. In particular, we are able to identify precisely how and in what conditions gravity can be mapped to electrodynamics. As a consequence, many of the gemometrical tools of General Relativity can be applied to Electromagnetism and vice-versa. We hope our results would shed new light in the nature of electromagnetic and gravitational theories.
May I ask, other than the first, how many of these have you read, michaelsuade?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:06 PM   #63
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 36,809
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Van Flandern's argument has no bearing on electric fields. He's not arguing the speed of light or electricity, he's strictly arguing gravity.
I know that. But the fact is that the logic he tries to use applies equally to electricity, and the reason it's wrong for electricity is the same reason that it's wrong for gravity.

For example, consider a positive charge and a negative charge sitting stationary near to each other. Which direction is the force between them? They are pulled directly towards each other.

Now what if the charges are near each other but both moving really fast (say, 0.5c)? According to Van Flandern's argument, since electromagnetic forces propagate at c, each charge should "see" the other charge as being behind where it currently is, and this should cause the force on the two charges to be pointed partly backwards and not directly towards each other.

But that's not what happens. Why? Because when a charge is moving, its field isn't simply a 1/r2 field, not even a "delayed" 1/r2 field. In point of fact, the force between them STILL points directly towards each other, in their current positions.

And the same applies to gravity. You cannot simply apply the field of a stationary mass if you want to figure out what happens to a moving mass. This has all been worked out for both electricity and gravity. It's actually a very interesting problem, but it's already been solved in great detail. You think you've stumbled upon something profound because you see the problem but you're ignorant of the solution. Furthermore, since you don't understand the solution, you assume that there IS no solution, and that nobody else has even stumbled upon the problem since we aren't all freaking out about what looks to you like a contradiction.

Quote:
It's like you didn't even bother to read his paper before commenting.
I looked it up, because my initial assumption was that you simply misinterpreted the paper. Imagine my surprise when the paper itself was complete crap.

Quote:
It's not even worth arguing with you if you can't even be bothered to know what you're arguing about. I may as well be debating a bot or a wall.
Funny, but since you obviously don't know any physics, that really applies to you, not me.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:07 PM   #64
michaelsuede
Graduate Poster
 
michaelsuede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,390
I understand your (the standard model) solution completely, and I'm saying it has about the same scientific and philosophical value as Ptolemy's epicycles.

There's no doubt that you can get a reasonably accurate model of behavior with the standard model solution. It's just that the solution tells you absolutely nothing meaningful about the causal nature of gravity.

Philosophically speaking, it is impossible for any solution involving spacetime to provide a meaningful answer as to what causes gravity, given that spacetime isn't some tangible thing beyond being a useful way to mathematically model the behavior of physical systems - not unlike Newton's laws of gravitation.

They work - they just tell you nothing about the underlying causes.

Thornhill and Van Flandern on the other hand are also providing solutions, that not only address behavior but also the related causes. Even if they are wrong (which they aren't), they are at least a million miles closer to providing some understanding of the underlying causes.

Further, your example is applying Van Flandern's theory to a totally separate problem that is completely unrelated and may have completely different underlying causes and explanations. Your argument is logical, but it's also fallacious.

Last edited by michaelsuede; 11th January 2017 at 10:13 PM.
michaelsuede is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 06:10 AM   #65
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 10,635
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I understand your (the standard model) solution completely, and I'm saying it has about the same scientific and philosophical value as Ptolemy's epicycles.

There's no doubt that you can get a reasonably accurate model of behavior with the standard model solution. It's just that the solution tells you absolutely nothing meaningful about the causal nature of gravity.

Philosophically speaking, it is impossible for any solution involving spacetime to provide a meaningful answer as to what causes gravity, given that spacetime isn't some tangible thing beyond being a useful way to mathematically model the behavior of physical systems - not unlike Newton's laws of gravitation.

They work - they just tell you nothing about the underlying causes.

Thornhill and Van Flandern on the other hand are also providing solutions, that not only address behavior but also the related causes. Even if they are wrong (which they aren't), they are at least a million miles closer to providing some understanding of the underlying causes.

Further, your example is applying Van Flandern's theory to a totally separate problem that is completely unrelated and may have completely different underlying causes and explanations. Your argument is logical, but it's also fallacious.
If you want to actually know how gravity works, then you should get some good information about gravity, and stop posting and believing all of that stupid crap that you have been posting about gravity.
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 09:28 AM   #66
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,217
Funny how the constant G used to calculate all sorts of trajectories is amazingly accurate

michaelsuede ,
What orbital evidence do you have that the measure of G is not very accurate?

This constant changing would be very noticeable and effect bodies on a wide variety of trajectories through our solar system and in it.


No PIONEER anomaly lets hope
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 09:32 AM   #67
phunk
Illuminator
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,351
Changes in G would change the length of the year, the radius of the earth's orbit, and a lot of other things that would be extremely noticeable.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 10:18 AM   #68
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 36,809
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I understand your (the standard model) solution completely
Obviously not, or you would have known that the standard model (ie, general relativity) predicts decaying orbits, not escaping orbits.

Quote:
There's no doubt that you can get a reasonably accurate model of behavior with the standard model solution. It's just that the solution tells you absolutely nothing meaningful about the causal nature of gravity.
This is a meaningless objection. Accuracy is the most you can ever expect from a scientific model. Anything beyond that is metaphysics, philosophy, or religion.

Quote:
Thornhill and Van Flandern on the other hand are also providing solutions
No, actually, Thornhill is not. He waves his hands about, but he never provides numbers, he never does calculations, he never makes quantitative predictions.

And Van Flandern is just wrong in his prediction.

Quote:
that not only address behavior but also the related causes. Even if they are wrong (which they aren't)
Oh yes they are.

Quote:
Further, your example is applying Van Flandern's theory to a totally separate problem that is completely unrelated and may have completely different underlying causes and explanations. Your argument is logical, but it's also fallacious.
No, it's not unrelated. It's EXACTLY the same issue: how do you make the physics of a force relativistically invariant? Van Flandern apparently thinks you can't unless the force carrier has infinite velocity, but that's complete nonsense. We know exactly how to do it. And by "we" I'm obviously not including you.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 11:05 AM   #69
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I mean whether you use G taken from a beam balance that was produced in the 18th century or G taken from a high tech atomic fountain, it makes no difference.

Measurements of G are all over the place. The Scientific American has done several articles and podcasts about this. I made this claim in reference to G not being proven to be a constant, which it is not. It is simply defined, not empirically proven, to be a constant.
I support your proposal! G is varying all over the place. However, the mass of each body is varying in such a way that the product of square root of G and the mass of the body is a constant.

The mass of each body in the universe varies randomly in time while the value of G varies in the opposite direction. However, the product GMm is always the same for each and every body in the universe. When G goes down to 4% of the documented value, the mass of each body increases by 500%.

The orbital calculations by NASA are operationally correct, as the the gravitational forces between bodies are unchanged. However, their calculations are ontologically incorrect because they don't take these sudden.

G is never measured. What is actually measured is GM, where M is the mass of some body. For instance, the first measurement of G was a measurement of GMm where M was the mass of the earth and m was reference body with a fixed inertial mass.

The question is why the sudden changes in inertial mass are not measured by nongravitational forces. The reason is that thse fluctuations occur on a very small time scale.

Sure, the inertial mass of a body can balloon to 500% of its documented value while the value of G goes down by a factor of 4% of its documented value. However, these sudden shifts in inertial mass occur on time scale that our current technology can't probe.

Note that Heisenbergs uncertainty principle can't help you because the time scale would be different for each inertial mass. In order for the changes in G to be indefectible, there would have to be one specific time scale below which the mass is fluctuating.

NASA and the European Union scientists are great technicians, but are not philosophers. Even though they their probes usually get to the place they are going, their metaphysics is wrong. They are using an effective G that is not valid at short time scales, when we know that G can be fluctuating wildly.

Perhaps the scientists aren't such great technicians. There are probes that fail. Maybe they launched their vehicles, and made celestial corrections, in time intervals where G was way off the documented values. This would explain why the most recent Juno probe is in a less than optimal orbit around Jupiter. NASA says that it was a problem with the fuel to oxidizer ratio, but maybe it is that fluctuating G!

Let me point out that the letter 'G' obviously stands for God. If it stood for gravity, the textbooks would choose a small 'g'. So the value of G varies by the will of God.

Related question:

How can I tell whether the acronym EU stands for Electric Universe or the European Union?

It is very hard to tell the difference these days!
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 12:26 PM   #70
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 10,635
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
I support your proposal! G is varying all over the place. However, the mass of each body is varying in such a way that the product of square root of G and the mass of the body is a constant.

The mass of each body in the universe varies randomly in time while the value of G varies in the opposite direction. However, the product GMm is always the same for each and every body in the universe. When G goes down to 4% of the documented value, the mass of each body increases by 500%.

The orbital calculations by NASA are operationally correct, as the the gravitational forces between bodies are unchanged. However, their calculations are ontologically incorrect because they don't take these sudden.

G is never measured. What is actually measured is GM, where M is the mass of some body. For instance, the first measurement of G was a measurement of GMm where M was the mass of the earth and m was reference body with a fixed inertial mass.

The question is why the sudden changes in inertial mass are not measured by nongravitational forces. The reason is that thse fluctuations occur on a very small time scale.

Sure, the inertial mass of a body can balloon to 500% of its documented value while the value of G goes down by a factor of 4% of its documented value. However, these sudden shifts in inertial mass occur on time scale that our current technology can't probe.

Note that Heisenbergs uncertainty principle can't help you because the time scale would be different for each inertial mass. In order for the changes in G to be indefectible, there would have to be one specific time scale below which the mass is fluctuating.

NASA and the European Union scientists are great technicians, but are not philosophers. Even though they their probes usually get to the place they are going, their metaphysics is wrong. They are using an effective G that is not valid at short time scales, when we know that G can be fluctuating wildly.

Perhaps the scientists aren't such great technicians. There are probes that fail. Maybe they launched their vehicles, and made celestial corrections, in time intervals where G was way off the documented values. This would explain why the most recent Juno probe is in a less than optimal orbit around Jupiter. NASA says that it was a problem with the fuel to oxidizer ratio, but maybe it is that fluctuating G!

Let me point out that the letter 'G' obviously stands for God. If it stood for gravity, the textbooks would choose a small 'g'. So the value of G varies by the will of God.

Related question:

How can I tell whether the acronym EU stands for Electric Universe or the European Union?

It is very hard to tell the difference these days!
Wow! What an incredible posting.

It rather reminds of something a famous knight once said to 'Arthur, King of the Britions':

Quote:
And that, my liege, is how we know the world to be banana shaped.
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 01:50 PM   #71
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,217
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I understand your (the standard model) solution completely, and I'm saying it has about the same scientific and philosophical value as Ptolemy's epicycles.
Then you are wrong, michaelsuede - you do not understand the science on gravitation which is based on empirical evidence not philosophy.

You seem to have a invalid idea about even what science is. Science is basically the process of fitting observations with theories. Newtonian gravitation explicitly told us a causal nature of gravity (an inverse square force law) that matched observations. General relativity explicitly told us a causal nature of gravity (curvature of spacetime) that matched observations. Whatever replaces GR will explicitly tell us a causal nature of gravity.

This is the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section a "Philosophically speaking" argument is irrelevant.

Thornhill is not providing solutions. Thornhill using his ignorance and delusions to parrot the ignorance and delusions of another crank about gravity being electrical.
10th April 2015: The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site, videos, etc.

Van Flandern did not provide any solution. Van Flandern did not provide any theory. He supported the outdated Lorentzian relativity (Lorentz ether theory) which has nothing to do with gravitation. It is an alternative to special relativity.

Last edited by Reality Check; 12th January 2017 at 02:04 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 04:14 PM   #72
jonesdave116
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 984
Hmmm, maybe I haven't read enough of Thorhill's gravity fantasy. Considering that this is the same bloke who thinks that solar wind H+ is going to combine with O- (not sure where he's getting that from) at comets, whilst hurtling along at 400 km/s, then I really can't be bothered looking too deeply into it. Science really isn't his strong point.
However, would this 'electric gravity' woo be noticeable, if the charge on one body in a bound orbit about another body, was changing?
Perhaps we could perform an experiment; call one of the bodies Rosetta, and the object which it is orbiting is called 67P. Let's have the charge on Rosetta vary with time (guess what? It did). Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that the 'remarkably non-magnetic' 67P has a charge on it also.
Would this lead to nasty orbital perturbations in that bound orbit? If so, why didn't we notice them? Or was the non-existent charge on 67P also changing, so as to compensate for the change in charge on Rosetta? Intelligent electric gravity.

All seems rather silly to me.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 04:44 PM   #73
jonesdave116
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 984
From michaelsuede:
Quote:
However, since G is not universal, the variance on other planetary systems that are undergoing a massive discharge or accumulating charge will be far greater. This is why comet directions can vary, and why comets appear to be made out of fluff according to their mass, while looking like solid boulders of burned rock. Their mass is being altered by the electrical discharge they are undergoing.
My bold.

Err, no. It may have escaped your attention, but when we impacted a comet in 2005, what came out was dust and solid ice particles. And left behind a crater that could not possibly have been made in rock. Comet Hartley 2 was also spewing forth a great deal of subsurface ice. There are lots of pretty pictures of it - just Google 'Hartley 2 snowstorm.' Of course, Wal didn't mention any of that anywhere, which is why it may have escaped your notice.
And then there is the just completed mission at 67P. Every instrument that would have detected rock, didn't. Nowhere to be seen. Conspicuous by its absence, was rock. And that included sending radio waves through the body of the comet. Zero rock. So no silly 'electric gravity' needed to explain the density of comets.
As for comets undergoing 'electrical discharge'; when did that happen? We happen to have our very own tame plasma astrophysicist on the forum, who was a member of the plasma team with the Rosetta mission, and he assures us that if any such thing had happened, it would have been very noticeable. It didn't.
So I would forget about comets, if I were you. That particular horse has well and truly bolted. Been captured. Shot. Buried. Covered in concrete. The aroma of its putrefying corpse is all that remains to remind us of its prior existence.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

Last edited by jonesdave116; 12th January 2017 at 04:51 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2017, 05:32 PM   #74
jonesdave116
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 984
Here is something for michaelsuede to look at:
http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2015/04...comment-432278

Posted by Prof. Harvey Rutt on the Rosetta blog, regarding the charge that would need to be on 67P to make it appear 4-5 times less massive than the EU would have us believe.
35 gigavolts. Yikes. Amazing that Philae survived that. Amazing that the comet survived it! If michaelsuede wants to check the equations, Tom Bridgman posted something similar prior to us knowing the charge on Rosetta:
http://dealingwithcreationisminastro...vs-charge.html

Plug the numbers in. It really is too silly for words.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

Last edited by jonesdave116; 12th January 2017 at 05:40 PM.
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2017, 10:03 AM   #75
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,194
At the bottom of this post, you'll find all relevant posts by michaelsuave ("ms", in this thread), quoted in full. The extracts in the rest of this post of mine are from that compendium of posts by ms (unless otherwise noted).

"Van Flandern's argument has no bearing on electric fields. He's not arguing the speed of light or electricity, he's strictly arguing gravity."

"your example is applying Van Flandern's theory to a totally separate problem that is completely unrelated and may have completely different underlying causes and explanations. Your argument is logical, but it's also fallacious"

How are gravity and "electricity" related, according to ms? Here's an extract from the source ms cited ("I believe Thornhill's theory of gravity is correct"):

Originally Posted by Thornhill
Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons. [18] The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies.
"Thornhill and Van Flandern on the other hand are also providing solutions, that not only address behavior but also the related causes. Even if they are wrong (which they aren't), they are at least a million miles closer to providing some understanding of the underlying causes."

One the one hand, van Flandern's paper has no bearing on "electric fields"; on the other hand, Thornhill (correctly) identifies the underlying cause of gravity as electric fields.

How to explain this (apparent) extreme inconsistency in ms' posts?

With the fundamental nature of gravity having been identified as "electricity", we can ask what the 'speed of gravity' is. It seems to me that there are two logical possibilities (accepting ms and his quoted sources): ~infinite (per van Flandern), or c (the 'speed of light').

While the speed of gravity is difficult to measure experimentally, in an earth-bound lab, I think the 'speed of electricity' should be quite straight-forward to measure. For example, think of a modern version of the 'spark gap' experiments of Hertz and MarconiWP. Now we know that there are tens of thousands, possibly millions, of Electric Universe fans; we know that the Electric Universe leaders ("electrical theorists") can obtains $millions in funding; that they have several people with good mathematical skills prepared to devote considerable effort to the cause (source: a string of announcements posted on relevant websites); ... so it's surely just a matter of weeks before there will be an announcement of the results of an independent, lab-based experiment on this critical/central question, right?

I mean, what could possibly be more worthy of objective, independently verifiable demonstration ("I'll stick with that the science says") than determining the speed of gravity?

(to be continued)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - sources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
post #8:
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Quote:
Now that we've got the terminology agreed upon, let's look at what I means for your claim that G is variable. Do you claim that it can vary arbitrarily?
The variance is not arbitrary.

Quote:
By what percentage?
That depends on the change in net charge in a given gravitational body.

Quote:
Or are you saying it only varies within about the spread described in the article you cite?
For Earth, it only varies within the spread described within the article. For other bodies that are not in electrically stable orbits, it can vary far more dramatically.

Quote:
What does the orbit of the Earth tell you about how much G actually isn't "constant"?
The orbit doesn't tell me anything. The fact that all measurements, no matter the complexity or accuracy of the system, vary over time, tells me that G not constant.

I believe Thornhill's theory of gravity is correct.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electr...tric-universe/
post #11:
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I should probably clarify my "change in net charge" response. That's really a poor choice of words that doesn't mean much.

G on Earth depends on the polarization of the Earth itself, which can be altered by adding or subtracting charge from the surface of the Earth. Ipso facto, G is not universal, it is local to each body.
post #17:
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Originally Posted by sts60
How much do you think G varies from natural variations in surface charging? What is the peak amplitude of the variation over, say the last few centuries? I'm looking for some kind of ballpark percentage range. I'm not agreeing eith your claim, but I want to understand what you think the strength of this effect is.
When you're measuring G, you're taking a proxy measurement of the strength of the charge, so the variance is minuscule here on Earth.

However, since G is not universal, the variance on other planetary systems that are undergoing a massive discharge or accumulating charge will be far greater. This is why comet directions can vary, and why comets appear to be made out of fluff according to their mass, while looking like solid boulders of burned rock. Their mass is being altered by the electrical discharge they are undergoing.
post #19:
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Originally Posted by Myriad
Two bodies 1 and 2 at a distance, interacting gravitationally. F1 = F2 = some constant * m1 * m2 / d^2. We call that constant G.

If each body has its own G instead which varies as its charge (or polarity?) changes, then F1 and F2 cannot remain equal. You lose not only universal gravitation, but Newton's third law as well. Good luck with that.
Well we don't have to go throwing out Newton's laws just yet. As Newton famously said, I frame no hypotheses. He didn't care that he couldn't explain what gravity was, just that his laws could explain how it behaved.

Since the planetary bodies in our solar system are in electrically stable orbits, Newton's laws serve us just fine for the mundane task of navigating our solar system, universal G or not.

Newton's laws fall apart when something upsets the electrical stability of the solar system - such as if a rogue brown dwarf were to enter the heliosphere of our Sun. At that point, Newton's laws are going out the window.
post #40:
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Well Ziggurat, I guess we have to disagree. I don't believe you can wash over the problems presented with reference frames. That's basically a mathematical way of ignoring the whole system and instead treating each component as if it was in its own independent universe. Sure, you can get a mathematically correct answer by doing that, but that doesn't mean it represents reality in anyway. And Van Flandern is not wrong about the speed of gravity.

GR really doesn't have any meaning to it. It's just a mathematical description.
post #45:
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Well JeanTate, thanks for your authoritative commentary, but I think I'll stick with that the science says.
post #47:
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Electric comets and electric gravity are related, as is everything under a unified theory, but they are pretty distinct topics.
post #53:
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
Originally Posted by Ziggurat
You missed the point: even if you do the calculations the hard way, you still get the same answer (if you do it right). Again, the field of a moving charge (electrical or gravitational) is different from the field of a stationary charge. It isn't simply the field of a stationary charge at its delayed position. That's not washing anything under the table, that's doing it right.

He absolutely is wrong, and obviously so. His reasoning applies to electric fields too (imagine two opposite charges in orbit around each other), where the finite propagation speed is more obvious since we literally see the results. And those results prove him wrong.
Van Flandern's argument has no bearing on electric fields. He's not arguing the speed of light or electricity, he's strictly arguing gravity. Subatomic particles like electrons are completely dominated by electromagnetic forces. Gravity does not cause electrons to orbit each other.

It's like you didn't even bother to read his paper before commenting. It's not even worth arguing with you if you can't even be bothered to know what you're arguing about. I may as well be debating a bot or a wall.
post #64:
Originally Posted by michaelsuede View Post
I understand your (the standard model) solution completely, and I'm saying it has about the same scientific and philosophical value as Ptolemy's epicycles.

There's no doubt that you can get a reasonably accurate model of behavior with the standard model solution. It's just that the solution tells you absolutely nothing meaningful about the causal nature of gravity.

Philosophically speaking, it is impossible for any solution involving spacetime to provide a meaningful answer as to what causes gravity, given that spacetime isn't some tangible thing beyond being a useful way to mathematically model the behavior of physical systems - not unlike Newton's laws of gravitation.

They work - they just tell you nothing about the underlying causes.

Thornhill and Van Flandern on the other hand are also providing solutions, that not only address behavior but also the related causes. Even if they are wrong (which they aren't), they are at least a million miles closer to providing some understanding of the underlying causes.

Further, your example is applying Van Flandern's theory to a totally separate problem that is completely unrelated and may have completely different underlying causes and explanations. Your argument is logical, but it's also fallacious.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2017, 10:40 AM   #76
jonesdave116
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 984
Having read JT's above post (tyvm), and suffered through Thornhill's nonsense on the hollowscience site (which references Crothers and Arp!), it seems to me that Wal has now been hoist by his own whatsit.
Either a comet is becoming more negatively charged as it approaches the Sun, or it isn't. If it is, we should see the apparent gravity of 67P changing with time. It doesn't. Ergo, Wal is wrong, either about gravity, or comets. Both, as it happens. Even if the comet wasn't (isn't!) charging, then the changes in the spacecraft potential should also mess up the orbital parameters of Rosetta, according to Wal. It didn't.*
No need to charge a piece of tinfoil; the experiment has already been done, over two years, and definitively shows that Wal's 'idea' is wrong. Partly by his own definition of what happens to comets as they approach the Sun. Nice one Wal.

*Actually, the measured density of 67P was changed from an initial estimate of ~470 kg m3, to ~535 kg m3. However, this was not due to any orbital shenanigans, but due to the southern hemisphere becoming more illuminated, and therefore allowing a more accurate shape model to be constructed. This resulted in a reduction of the estimated volume. For EU readers, density = mass/volume.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2017, 11:27 AM   #77
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,217
I had been thinking that about a variety of objects on elliptical and hyperbolic orbits
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2017, 03:54 PM   #78
Aber
Muse
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 729
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
I had been thinking that about a variety of objects on elliptical and hyperbolic orbits
This may be relevant:

Quote:
The billiard-sharp whom anyone catches
His doom’s extremely hard—
He’s made to dwell
In a dungeon cell
On a spot that’s always barred.
And there he plays extravagant matches
In fitless finger-stalls,
On a cloth untrue
With a twisted cue
And elliptical billiard balls
.
Aber is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2017, 12:37 PM   #79
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,194
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
At the bottom of this post, you'll find all relevant posts by michaelsuave ("ms", in this thread), quoted in full. The extracts in the rest of this post of mine are from that compendium of posts by ms (unless otherwise noted).

"Van Flandern's argument has no bearing on electric fields. He's not arguing the speed of light or electricity, he's strictly arguing gravity."

"your example is applying Van Flandern's theory to a totally separate problem that is completely unrelated and may have completely different underlying causes and explanations. Your argument is logical, but it's also fallacious"

How are gravity and "electricity" related, according to ms? Here's an extract from the source ms cited ("I believe Thornhill's theory of gravity is correct"):



"Thornhill and Van Flandern on the other hand are also providing solutions, that not only address behavior but also the related causes. Even if they are wrong (which they aren't), they are at least a million miles closer to providing some understanding of the underlying causes."

One the one hand, van Flandern's paper has no bearing on "electric fields"; on the other hand, Thornhill (correctly) identifies the underlying cause of gravity as electric fields.

How to explain this (apparent) extreme inconsistency in ms' posts?

With the fundamental nature of gravity having been identified as "electricity", we can ask what the 'speed of gravity' is. It seems to me that there are two logical possibilities (accepting ms and his quoted sources): ~infinite (per van Flandern), or c (the 'speed of light').

While the speed of gravity is difficult to measure experimentally, in an earth-bound lab, I think the 'speed of electricity' should be quite straight-forward to measure. For example, think of a modern version of the 'spark gap' experiments of Hertz and MarconiWP. Now we know that there are tens of thousands, possibly millions, of Electric Universe fans; we know that the Electric Universe leaders ("electrical theorists") can obtains $millions in funding; that they have several people with good mathematical skills prepared to devote considerable effort to the cause (source: a string of announcements posted on relevant websites); ... so it's surely just a matter of weeks before there will be an announcement of the results of an independent, lab-based experiment on this critical/central question, right?

I mean, what could possibly be more worthy of objective, independently verifiable demonstration ("I'll stick with that the science says") than determining the speed of gravity?

(to be continued)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - sources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
{snip}
(continued)

Someone new to "the Electric Universe", and taking fans such as ms at their word (e.g. "I'll stick with that the science says"), might be confused by the (apparent) extreme inconsistency I identified in my last post ... how can someone who says they are a science stickler apparently not recognize the inconsistency between believing that "Thornhill's theory of gravity is correct" and that van Flandern's paper has no bearing on "electric fields"?

And, worse, having had the (apparent) inconsistency pointed out, why remain silent (ms has not posted a response to my post)? After all, wouldn't you be pleased? I mean, science is about what's objective, and independently verifiable, not what's good for one's ego, isn't it?

I have a suggested reason: whatever the Electric Universe is, it is not science.

Several other ISF members have pointed this out, in one way or another, in this thread: Ziggurat, Reality Check, and jonesdave116 to name a few.

And ms himself has pointed to this fact in several of his own posts. For example, his use of "belief": "I believe Thornhill's theory of gravity is correct", "I don't believe you can wash over the problems presented with reference frames", "Even if they are wrong (which they aren't)".

Then there's the, um, dismissing the ability of a theory (or model) to match all relevant observations: "Sure, you can get a mathematically correct answer by doing that, but that doesn't mean it represents reality in anyway. [...] GR really doesn't have any meaning to it. It's just a mathematical description.", "There's no doubt that you can get a reasonably accurate model of behavior with the standard model solution. It's just that the solution tells you absolutely nothing meaningful about the causal nature of gravity."

Finally, and perhaps most telling, is the acceptance of ideas ("Thornhill's theory of gravity") without (essentially) any objective, independent verification (i.e. experimental and observational tests). It would have been very easy for ms to have provided sources which report such verification, for many (if not all) the following, but he didn't. And he didn't because - AFAIK - no such sources exist: "[the value of G] depends on the change in net charge in a given gravitational body", "For other bodies that are not in electrically stable orbits, it [G] can vary far more dramatically", "G on Earth depends on the polarization of the Earth itself, which can be altered by adding or subtracting charge from the surface of the Earth", "since G is not universal, the variance on other planetary systems that are undergoing a massive discharge or accumulating charge will be far greater. This is why comet directions can vary, and why comets appear to be made out of fluff according to their mass, while looking like solid boulders of burned rock. Their mass is being altered by the electrical discharge they are undergoing".

Of course, I could be wrong; perhaps there is a paper, published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal, which shows - objectively, in an independently verifiable way - that "Thornhill's theory of gravity" is consistent with a range of directly relevant experimental and observational results (e.g. some comet orbits, variations in g observed by GRACE during an intense auroral display, a thin conducting foil levitating when appropriately charged)?

To close, whatever the Electric Universe is, it is not science.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2017, 01:31 PM   #80
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 19,217
That "GR really doesn't have any meaning to it. It's just a mathematical description." from michaelsuede does sound like unthinking parroting of Wal Thornhill. For example look at the ignorant and irrational rant Thornhill wrote when the detection of gravitational waves was announced.
  • The delusion that spacetime has to be a physics concept - an actual fabric!
  • The delusion that observational data fitting a mathematical computer model is not evidence that the physics used to create the model is correct.
  • Cites the handyman/gardener and part-time amateur scientist Stephen J. Crothers as a source rather then using his own brain ! This is the part of the rant where he denies the real world where even classical physics such as electromagnetism have solutions for single bodies in a otherwise empty universe.
  • Lies about Einstein not understanding gravity or light.
  • An ignorant lie that the 2 LIGO detectors would have detected the signal at the same time.
    GR states that the speed of gravitational waves is the speed of light - not infinite as is assumed in Newtonian gravitation.
  • A lie that QM terms are used to explain gravitational waves!
  • The delusion of "the dogma of relativity".
  • Quotes a description of what we expect as a signal of gravitational waves from any merging objects - a chirp. But then he denies the science and rants.
  • The ignorant delusion that light needs something to wave in.
  • A lie that the vacuum has the properties of a dielectric medium. There constants defined for the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum.
  • An abysmally ignorant delusion of the "dielectric medium of the vacuum is a plenum of neutrinos".
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:16 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.