Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[Arthur Mann]

Wow. Just wow.

Scintillating retort.

Your best argument for proving that the conventional gravity model is wrong is . . . it's popular?

I haven't presented any arguments, as I am not arguing, merely trying to help you learn. I pointed out that popularity of an idea in no way reinforces its (real or presumed) validity.

Gravity is quite well-demonstrated in small-scale laboratory experiments, and when we scale the resulting models up to large scales, the models show that large quantities of hot gas (say, 10^30 kg) should compress themselves quite nicely.

I'm sure you'd agree that attraction exists in the universe. Please describe an experiment that can verify "gravity", which we can't generate, amplify, block or manipulate in any fashion, is the cause, and not the very real forces of electricity and magnetism, which we can generate, amplify, block and manipulate freely.

[ETA -

Please describe an experiment that can be used to verify this capacity of gases to compress themselves.

]

[/QUOTE]I've found that I cannot block, amplify, or manipulate the island of Madagascar. Should I conclude that it's fictional?[/QUOTE]

Your claim that you can not manipulate Madagascar is accepted. Does that suggest that the laws of physics forbid simulating Madagascar in the lab and manipulating it? Certainly not. Your comment is a red herring.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm sure you'd agree that attraction exists in the universe. Please describe an experiment that can verify "gravity", which we can't generate, amplify, block or manipulate in any fashion, is the cause, and not the very real forces of electricity and magnetism, which we can generate, amplify, block and manipulate freely.

What on Earth makes you think we can't manipulate gravity. Did you read about the Cavendish experiment.

[ETA -

Please describe an experiment that can be used to verify this capacity of gases to compress themselves.

]

Ok. Measure the air pressure at sea level. Measure the air pressure at increasing altitude. Fit this with a function. Compare this with the function one would expect from a gravitational field.

 

[Arthur Mann]

(and then I just forget Peratt where gravitation is discussed on pages: Gravitational force, 1, 17, 59, 60, 63, 65, 67, 285, 286, 299, 300, 325)

Not everyone who acknowledges the electrical nature of the universe and the dominance of electromagnetic force is prepared to suggest (or accept) that "gravity" is just an unfortunate misunderstanding. This mirrors the unwillingness of Galileo's contemporaries (contemptoraries?) to even review his data or use his instruments. It's a common theme in the history of science over the ages, new, valid ideas are routinely dismissed by the masses owing to their ignorance and previous bias toward fallacious ideas.

Want another example of this kind of tragedy? Ptolemy's epicycles worked very well to predict the position of planets in the sky over time. Was it a pedagogical model or was it an unfortunate misunderstanding to create enough "epicycles" to finally account for the observations using the model? Just imagine how difficult it would have been for a contemporary who believed the planets all revolved around the sun to actually try and convince somebody that Ptolemy's right-answer-producing model was, in fact, wrong, and in no way reflected the reality of the situation.

What can we learn from this? The same thing taught to us by the famous "razor", which states that, all else being equal, the simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is more likely the correct one. In this case, though, it's a corollary of the razor, the most complicated explanation that requires the most assumptions is most likely the incorrect one.

 

[Perpetual Student]

If you can generate gravity, or amplify it, or block it, then I'll entertain the notion that it's real. Can you store gravity? Can you empty an object of gravity? Is there any experimental verification of this imagined force? I don't suggest attraction does not take place in the universe, I merely point out that "gravity" is a serious misunderstanding. Like Ptolemy's epicycles, it is not a valid pedagogical model, even though it may produce the right answer. And Ptolemy's epicycles were actually better at that, even here on the surface of Earth where gravity seems to work most of the time, it still fails, and it always fails when we apply it to space.
...

As a layman, who is not very familiar with the doctrines you are advocating here, I have a few questions that would help my understanding of your dogma.

I weigh about 175 lbs. For some six decades, I have thought that is because [latex] F=G\dfrac {m_1m_2}{r^2}[/latex], where G is the universal gravitational constant, my mass is m₁ and the earth's mass is m₂, r is the distance from me to the center of mass of the earth. (The English unit "pound" is about 4.448222 N.)
First, do I understand correctly that you are claiming that my weight is due something other than the above (Newton's) gravitational formula? If so, could you be so kind as to give me the correct (electrical?) formula that would determine my weight? And while your at it, would you please also tell me specifically what (electrical?) charges are involved with the earth and my body to account for my weight?

 

[Arthur Mann]

What on Earth makes you think we can't manipulate gravity.

The whole of observable reality and the sum of human knowledge makes me think that.

Ok. Measure the air pressure at sea level. Measure the air pressure at increasing altitude. Fit this with a function. Compare this with the function one would expect from a gravitational field.

observations provide -> model which proves -> observations verify model

This kind of circular argument doesn't cut any ice with me. The expectations of the model were malformed to fit the observations, gravity is not a predictive model, it's a doppleganger, just like Ptolemy's epicycles.

 

[Ziggurat]

What can we learn from this? The same thing taught to us by the famous "razor", which states that, all else being equal, the simplest explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is more likely the correct one. In this case, though, it's a corollary of the razor, the most complicated explanation that requires the most assumptions is most likely the incorrect one.

Apparently you've been cutting yourself shaving.

Newtonian gravity is in fact the simplest explanation for both the trajectories of thrown objects and the orbit of the moon, not to mention the Cavendish experiment and all the other experimental determinations of G since then. Explaining such forces and motion with electromagnetism is... well, it's complicated enough that nobody has ever done it.

 

[Arthur Mann]

I have a few questions that would help my understanding of your dogma.

I don't practice dogma, I use scientific rigor to dictate my beliefs, not rote memorization.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I don't practice dogma, I use scientific rigor to dictate my beliefs, not rote memorization.

OK, then would you please apply your scientific rigor to give me the correct (electrical?) formula that would determine my weight? And while your at it, would you please also tell me specifically what (electrical?) charges are involved with the earth and my body to account for my weight?

 

[Arthur Mann]

Newtonian gravity is in fact the simplest explanation

Your belief is not shared universally.

not to mention the Cavendish experiment and all the other experimental determinations of G since then

The experiments you describe illuminate the extent of attraction in the universe, but offer no support for the supposed cause, "gravity". Such support lies outside the realm of the possible, I'm afraid.

Explaining such forces and motion with electromagnetism is...

reasonable, given that we know those forces exist, we can readily produce and manipulate them in the lab for controlled experiment and that over 99% of the universe is plasma, which is observed not to obey the dictates of gravity's "laws".

 

[Ziggurat]

The whole of observable reality and the sum of human knowledge makes me think that.

Your understanding of the sum of human knowledge is... lacking.

We have been doing exactly what you claimed we can't do for over two hundred years.

gravity is not a predictive model, it's a doppleganger, just like Ptolemy's epicycles.

I wonder what your definition of "predictive" is, if you don't think that an accurate prediction of the Cassini space probe's amazingly complex trajectory doesn't count as predictive.

 

[Tubbythin]

The whole of observable reality and the sum of human knowledge makes me think that.

So if I move push this big lead block of the table it doesn't fall due to gravity.

observations provide -> model which proves -> observations verify model

This kind of circular argument doesn't cut any ice with me. The expectations of the model were malformed to fit the observations, gravity is not a predictive model, it's a doppleganger, just like Ptolemy's epicycles.

Funny that this unpredictive model allows us to correctly predict the motions of planets, moons, stars, satellites, comets, asteroids, falling apples etc etc. Do you think Cassinni made it to Saturn by sheer chance?

 

[Arthur Mann]

please apply your scientific rigor

I'll do even better than that, I'll give you a link to a document that may help you learn this information:

here

It's quite short. A more complete discussion of gravity will have to take place in another thread, let's try to stay on topic here.

 

[Tubbythin]

reasonable, given that we know those forces exist, we can readily produce and manipulate them in the lab for controlled experiment and that over 99% of the universe is plasma, which is observed not to obey the dictates of gravity's "laws".

Provide quantitative evidence that plasma does not obey Newton's law please.
Also, please state whether it is Newton's law of gravity or our understanding of electromagnetism that allowed us to get Cassini to Saturn and the Voyager probes to the edge of the solar system.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your belief is not shared universally.

In other words, you don't believe it's the simplest explanation. Yet you can provide no simpler explanation than F = GMm/r². Not that complicated, is it? In fact, it's simpler than electromagnetism, which requires four differential equations, rather than one algebraic equation, to adequately describe in its standard form. And its standard form has never been used to explain the examples I gave.

But I eagerly await your even simpler alternative.

reasonable, given that we know those forces exist, we can readily produce and manipulate them in the lab for controlled experiment and that over 99% of the universe is plasma, which is observed not to obey the dictates of gravity's "laws".

The Cavendish experiment wasn't performed using plasma. The moon is not made of plasma. Baseballs are not made of plasma. Man-made satellites orbiting the earth are not made of plasma. I don't care about your mistaken belief that gravity doesn't affect plasma: even if you're right about that, that irrelevant to the motion of objects which are not plasma.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'll do even better than that, I'll give you a link to a document that may help you learn this information:

here

It's quite short. A more complete discussion of gravity will have to take place in another thread, let's try to stay on topic here.

Hmm. 14 pages about this amazing alternative to gravity... and not a single piece of quantitative justification. A bigger pile of scientific fail it is difficult to imagine.

 

[dasmiller]

I'm sure you'd agree that attraction exists in the universe. Please describe an experiment that can verify "gravity", which we can't generate, amplify, block or manipulate in any fashion

As I and others have described, we generate and manipulate gravity all the time. We don't have a good way to block it.

is the cause, and not the very real forces of electricity and magnetism, which we can generate, amplify, block and manipulate freely.

Sure. The usual torsion bar test that students use for determining the gravitational constant will work just fine. As a part of the test, ensure that the two test masses are electrically neutral, and, if you like, run the test in an enclosure to block out any extraneous fields.

[ETA -
Please describe an experiment that can be used to verify this capacity of gases to compress themselves.
]

TT's covered that one.

Your claim that you can not manipulate Madagascar is accepted. Does that suggest that the laws of physics forbid simulating Madagascar in the lab and manipulating it? Certainly not. Your comment is a red herring.

I genuinely don't know what to make of that. You think the laws of physics forbid simulation and manipulation of gravity?

 

[D'rok]

Hmm. 14 pages about this amazing alternative to gravity... and not a single piece of quantitative justification. A bigger pile of scientific fail it is difficult to imagine.

But it has scientifically rigorous pictures of old guys doing stuff!

 

[Arthur Mann]

So if I move push this big lead block of the table it doesn't fall due to gravity.

That's the thrust of this claim, yes. Real forces do the work, not ptolemic misunderstandings.

Funny that this unpredictive model allows us to correctly predict the motions of planets, moons, stars, satellites, comets, asteroids, falling apples etc etc.

Predictability does not prove pedagogy. Ptolemy's model correctly predicted the same motions. Gravity, however, does not accurately describe even the bodies in our solar system. it can not reasonably account for the shape and motion of galaxies without "unobservable" stuff like "black hole" and "dark matter". Gravity can not explain the "pioneer anomaly". Gravity can only successfully predict objects that are ostensibly "neutral" with respect to one another and their environment. Even here on the surface of Earth, where all known life exists, the rules of gravitation are routinely overturned by electric and magnetic forces. A refrigerator magnet is a good example. The behavior of plasmas is another, quite striking, example.

Do you think Cassinni made it to Saturn by sheer chance?

Space vehicles reach their destinations through a combination of pre-planning (calculating velocity and trajectory), as well as mid-course corrections guided by remote observations. These vehicles are not "fire and forget", and have little chance of striking their targets without repeated "course corrections". Couple that with the "pioneer anomaly" and it shows most researchers, while technically skilled and able to build these machines, do not have the faintest clue about the laws governing motion of charged bodies immersed in plasma.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'll do even better than that, I'll give you a link to a document that may help you learn this information:

here

It's quite short. A more complete discussion of gravity will have to take place in another thread, let's try to stay on topic here.

I will review that document, thanks. I believe I am staying on topic by provisionally accepting your view that there is no gravity. Now, I am asking you to provide the electrical basis and the mathematical formula with which I can calculate my weight?

 

[sol invictus]

Since gravity doesn't exist and we can "block" other forces, where's my flying car?