My argument against materialism

[Belz...]

Gravity isn't a universally force whose power is chipped away by local counter forces such those in an ionized EM field. Its power and action depends on the mass/density/energy in a locality. Our Sun consists of ionized particles in such a field but we know the Sun's form is the result of nuclear energy from its core radiating outwards and gravity's attraction.

The sun's energy is indeed countering gravity, but that might have something to do with the fact also that the sun is ionised gas. There IS no electron degeneracy pressure in the core, which is why massive stars collapse into neutron stars.

I honestly don't know where your problem lies. Is it because you deny that EM forces cause solid objects to be solid ? Or because you think, somehow, that even without this effect gravity would magically stop compressing balls of ionised gas to a certain diameter ? I'm honestly asking you.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Notes on Gravity

Why would black holes even exist if gravity wasn't always "attempting" to crush all mass into the smallest possible volume?

Yes gravity is attractive but its action depends on the mass/energy in a locality. Obviously black holes are not everywhere but gravity is. What happens in a locality depends on the mass/energy values.

Galaxies and solar systems exist because of gravity, while they are prevented from being crushed into their center mostly by angular momentum.

Angular momentum per sec in astrophysics relates to a body's spin or rotation. However, gravity in fact causes less massive bodies to orbit larger massive ones. What happens depends primarily on the value of the mass/energy factors and not the spin or rotation of celestial bodies.

Stars exist because of gravity, while they are prevented from being crushed into their centers by the outward force produced by their fusion.

True

Planets exist because of gravity.. but their mass doesn't have significant angular momentum or a fusion reaction in their core. They are prevented from being crushed into their center by the fact that the atoms and molecules that make them up have electromagnetic forces that keep them apart.

Again, the value of mass/energy rules the crushing factor you speak of. If it gets high enough, squish. EM forces only repel like charged ions in gases and plasmas. However EM bonds atoms and molecules in solid parts of planets like the inner rocky planets including Earth. In the end gravity is boss.

Neutron stars exist by gravity but they have the Pauli Exclusion Principle keeping their neutrons from occupying the same space. This prevents them from being crushed into their centers.

Black holes have so much gravity that they break ALL of this.

Okay

 

[Belz...]

Yes, I have but this principle only applies to fermions.

ELECTRONS ARE FERMIONS.

The forces including EM are carried by bosons and the Pauli Exclusion Principle doesn't apply to them.

who cares ? It's the electrons keeping the molecules together that are the issue, here.

Its action is not related to your imagined EM repulsion.

You said a few posts ago that EM causes your hand to NOT go through your keyboard. I honestly don't see how it's imagined if you agree that it's there. I also don't understand how you can admit it exists in one breath, and even knowing that you don't go through the ground DUE TO GRAVITY because the EM forces prevent you from going through said ground, you still say that it has no counter-effect on graivty !

 

[Belz...]

Of course EM doesn't repulse gravity, it repulses other EM fields of like charges so it takes an extraordinary mass to generate enough gravity to overcome that repulsion. Black holes have enough mass in a small enough space to do that, Jupiter doesn't.

I'd like to repost this as it is the most concise explanation of Ken's misunderstanding so far.

 

[ehcks]

Post #2288 I was rushed when I wrote post #2287 and did an edit some minutes later. In any event the so-called EM repulsion as per the discussion isn't real.

I really hope no one asked this..

If EM repulsion doesn't exist, then how do magnets work?

 

[kenkoskinen]

ELECTRONS ARE FERMIONS.



who cares ? It's the electrons keeping the molecules together that are the issue, here.



You said a few posts ago that EM causes your hand to NOT go through your keyboard. I honestly don't see how it's imagined if you agree that it's there. I also don't understand how you can admit it exists in one breath, and even knowing that you don't go through the ground DUE TO GRAVITY because the EM forces prevent you from going through said ground, you still say that it has no counter-effect on graivty !

Belz, you misunderstand. Yes the Pauli Exclusion Principle only acts on fermions. You can't use it to argue for EM repulsion as per the discussion. The reason is that EM is a force and is carried by photons which are bosons. These are not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle so you can't use it to argue for "EM repulsion" acting as a counter force to gravity.

 

[ehcks]

Belz, you misunderstand. Yes the Pauli Exclusion Principle only acts on fermions. You can't use it to argue for EM repulsion as per the discussion. The reason is that EM is a force and is carried by photons which are bosons. These are not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle so you can't use it to argue for EM repulsion.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Slow down there. You're saying Electromagnetism, the compound force of Electricity and Magnetism, both individually governed by electrons, is not actually governed by electrons?

 

[Belz...]

Belz, you misunderstand. Yes the Pauli Exclusion Principle only acts on fermions. You can't use it to argue for EM repulsion as per the discussion. The reason is that EM is a force and is carried by photons which are bosons. These are not subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principle so you can't use it to argue for "EM repulsion" acting as a counter force to gravity.

I said IN THE POST YOU replied to that it's the ELECTRONS that matter, here.

The reason you're not going through the ground as a result of gravity is because the electrons from your feet are repelled by those of the ground, and gravity isn't strong enough to overwhelm that force.

If your interpretation of gravity were correct, the following scenario would be true:

Take two spheres. Say, each 100 km across, but each with a mass equivalent to half of the Earth. Both are at complete rest and their centers are at a distance of exactly one Earth diameter from one another. You're basically saying that once we get the clock ticking, they won't move. They will magically stay at that distance, although gravity should pull them together.

Is that what you think ? Because if it is, you'll have to explain how that works. If it isn't, then please tell me what you think should happen, and why.

 

[tsig]

What argument?

The one against materialism. Like the OP says.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Newton's Laws are Misunderstood

Ken,
If I drop a cannon ball from the top of a building, it'll probably end up moving pretty quickly before it hits the ground. But when it lands (assuming it doesn't bounce or roll away or something), it'll stop. Newton's first law (roughly) says that an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by a force. What force could cause my cannon ball to stop moving? Or is this case an exception to the law?

"Probably Not" You have to understand that in Newton's time (17th century) the four forces of nature weren't known. He was first to develop a theory of gravitation but after he delineated his Laws of Motion. Know this, he isn't thinking in terms of the later discovered EM force. EM wasn't understood until the 19th century figures James Clerk Maxwell and Michael Faraday.

So ... Newton's laws of motion are all about observations of objects stationary and moving. "Force" in his first law is equivalent to a push or pull or even an object hitting a solid such as your ball hitting the ground. It means unless you or something pushes/interferes or hits an object it will remain in the same state, either stationary or moving. Of course friction slows down moving objects but if you could eliminate it, it would continue unless a "force" acts on it, to stop it, decelerate or accelerate it.

Also, are you surprised to find that so many people here seem to disagree with you regarding the role of EM forces?

I know there isn't any global EM repulsion that cancels gravity, and that it isn't part of mainstream physics. Further the concept contains several other flaws which I will post in due time.

But no I'm not too surprised about the disagreements ... given all of the misunderstandings. The way some people think about Newton's Laws, for example, shows they don't understand them (see my other lengthier post in response to PixieMisa earlier this morning).

Do not get me wrong ... I misfire too when I'm tired, rushed etc. People also get nasty on-line ... oh well. In any case I've learned from the exchange ... I hope you do to. When the smoke clears ... I'll ask the SMT experts to look at all of this.

 

[kenkoskinen]

The whole of physics disagrees with him.

See my post #2307 for the answers.

 

[ehcks]

So ... Newton's laws of motion are all about observations of objects stationary and moving. "Force" in his first law is equivalent to a push or pull or even an object hitting a solid such as your ball hitting the ground.

What makes a mass of molecules "solid"? You can start with a gas. When you remove kinetic energy in the form of heat, you eventually cause it to be a liquid. Liquids have higher friction than gases. Why?

Then you keep lowering the temperature and it becomes a solid. Lots of "whys" happen here. Why can you not travel through a solid like you can a liquid or gas? Why is a solid "solid"? Why do the molecules form into the specific formation they do, be it grids, sheets, crystals, etc.?

Everything I know about physics say all of these are caused by the electromagnetic force and the electron configurations of the molecules.

 

[Belz...]

Newton's Laws are Misunderstood

You can say that, again.

 

[Belz...]

I know there isn't any global EM repulsion that cancels gravity

Who said anything about anything more than LOCAL fields ?

But no I'm not too surprised about the disagreements ... given all of the misunderstandings.

Yes, because the only possible source of disagreement is because NOBODY but you understands physics.


Say, how about answering my question about the scenario I outline above ?

 

[kenkoskinen]

Deliberate Nothing

Do you think he's deliberately misinterpreting what you said?


Yup - looks like deliberate misinterpretation Even I can see that 'that inward force' refers to gravity and 'by Newton's Laws of Motion' refers to the effect gravity will have - it's either deliberate or a total failure of reading comprehension.

That's really quite disappointing.

dlorde, read what she wrote: "By Newton's Laws of Motion, that inward force, if not counterbalanced, will result in an inward acceleration. That inward acceleration, if not counterbalanced, will not stop until Jupiter is reduced to a point mass - a black hole. This isn't happening, so clearly there is a counterbalancing force."

There wasn't any deliberate interpretation. When you insert a phrase between two commas following a lead in phrase, it is taken to clarify the lead in. If she meant gravity then she should have written that.

In any case there isn't any globally acting EM repulsion counterbalancing gravity. Gravity acts on EM and the other forces and they gravitate. Sorry about that!

 

[dafydd]

See my post #2307 for the answers.

I have seen it. Real physicists disagree with you and so does physics

http://www.abarim-publications.com/QuantumMechanicsIntroduction.html
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/basics-of-quantum-mechanics-for-dummies.html

 

[dafydd]

In any case there isn't any globally acting EM repulsion counterbalancing gravity. Gravity acts on EM and the other forces and they gravitate. Sorry about that!

No need to be sorry about a delusion. Are you using the dictionary definition of the word gravitate?

 

[dafydd]

Who said anything about anything more than LOCAL fields ?



Yes, because the only possible source of disagreement is because NOBODY but you understands physics.


Say, how about answering my question about the scenario I outline above ?

I thought that Bjarne was the only one who understood physics? Or was it Pixy Misa? Or Bishadi? We should let them fight it out and then we will know how the universe really works. Who should I believe,woos or real scientists? Decisions,decisions.

 

[Probably Not]

"Probably Not" You have to understand that in Newton's time (17th century) the four forces of nature weren't known. He was first to develop a theory of gravitation but after he delineated his Laws of Motion. Know this, he isn't thinking in terms of the later discovered EM force. EM wasn't understood until the 19th century figures James Clerk Maxwell and Michael Faraday.

Does it matter? Even if Newton himself might not have been able to identify the forces involved in this interaction, the first law would indicate that SOME force must be involved in order to stop a moving cannon ball on impact with the ground. Unless you believe that this case is an exception to the law?

So ... Newton's laws of motion are all about observations of objects stationary and moving. "Force" in his first law is equivalent to a push or pull or even an object hitting a solid such as your ball hitting the ground. It means unless you or something pushes/interferes or hits an object it will remain in the same state, either stationary or moving. Of course friction slows down moving objects but if you could eliminate it, it would continue unless a "force" acts on it, to stop it, decelerate or accelerate it.

Sure. So I have an object. It was at motion, but was stopped suddenly when it hit the ground. So according to the first law, some force must have been applied to 'push or interfere' with its motion. You could describe this force as friction, and that's probably accurate. But friction isn't one of the four fundamental forces; it's an effect of EM. If you disagree, please explain why.

I know there isn't any global EM repulsion that cancels gravity, and that it isn't part of mainstream physics. Further the concept contains several other flaws which I will post in due time.

I'll quote Mister Agenda again, because this really does seem to be at the heart of the misunderstanding.

Of course EM doesn't repulse gravity, it repulses other EM fields of like charges so it takes an extraordinary mass to generate enough gravity to overcome that repulsion. Black holes have enough mass in a small enough space to do that, Jupiter doesn't.

 

[dafydd]

I've missed the last few pages, so please forgive if I'm re-stating the obvious, but gravity would super crunch things inward without counter forces against it, primarily the repulsive force of EM. Of course EM doesn't repulse gravity, it repulses other EM fields of like charges so it takes an extraordinary mass to generate enough gravity to overcome that repulsion. Black holes have enough mass in a small enough space to do that, Jupiter doesn't.

Rem acu tetigisti.