• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My argument against materialism

kenkoskinen said:
...There wasn't any deliberate interpretation.
Click to expand...
Reading comprehension failure then.

If she meant gravity then she should have written that.
Click to expand...
When talking about gravity, what else could 'that force' mean? It's simple English comprehension. Assuming 'Newton's Laws of Motion' just makes no sense at all...

Incidentally, what's with the arbitrary gender assignations?
 
dlorde said:
Even Feynman couldn't explain that - to a layman...
Click to expand...
Well, you have forgotten the original argument. Of course magnetism repels magnetic charges that are alike and attracts unlike ones. Ditto for electrically charged particles. No one disputes that. It has been proven so many times its beyond a reasonable doubt.

The unheard of idea is that EM repulsion acts on a global level repelling or counteracting gravity. Further if it didn't Jupiter, for example, would become a neutron star.

Additionally, even in the everyday world towards it has been asserted that EM repulsion acts on neutral objects. When one sits on chair EM repulsion supposedly repels their derriere up a little, against gravity. It has also been asserted that this is universally accepted by physicists, but I know it's not true. There isn't a stitch of experimental evidence and not a single clear, specific line written by any main stream physicist about this kind of EM repulsion. Skeptics like to drop the "woo" word on people who accept things that are irrational and/or without substantiation i.e. detections, experimental evidence etc. I find this so absurd, that I call it woo science and am willing to prove it to be so ... before I leave this thread. It will go to SMT.
 
kenkoskinen said:
Well, you have forgotten the original argument. Of course magnetism repels magnetic charges that are alike and attracts unlike ones. Ditto for electrically charged particles. No one disputes that. It has been proven so many times its beyond a reasonable doubt.

The unheard of idea is that EM repulsion acts on a global level repelling or counteracting gravity. Further if it didn't Jupiter, for example, would become a neutron star.

Additionally, even in the everyday world towards it has been asserted that EM repulsion acts on neutral objects. When one sits on chair EM repulsion supposedly repels their derriere up a little, against gravity. It has also been asserted that this is universally accepted by physicists, but I know it's not true. There isn't a stitch of experimental evidence and not a single clear, specific line written by any main stream physicist about this kind of EM repulsion. Skeptics like to drop the "woo" word on people who accept things that are irrational and/or without substantiation i.e. detections, experimental evidence etc. I find this so absurd, that I call it woo science and am willing to prove it to be so ... before I leave this thread. It will go to SMT.
Click to expand...

Show us your theory,complete with the maths please. By the the way,you believe it's not true,you don't know it. There is a difference.
 
Last edited:
ehcks said:
Ok, sure. But what are the Bosons?

You have the photon, of course, but then you have the W boson, the Z boson, gluons, the theoretical Higgs boson, and also theoretical gravitons.

None of these are protons, neutrons, or electrons.


ETA: Out of the bosons, only the photon is related to the electromagnetic force. W and Z bosons mediate the Weak force, while gluons have the Strong force.
Click to expand...
I agree but I don't understand. Are you making a point or just saying?
 
"It has also been asserted that this is universally accepted by physicists, but I know it's not true."

This statement, regardless of context, nearly always guarantees that you're wrong.

But ok then, what's your alternative?
 
ehcks said:
"It has also been asserted that this is universally accepted by physicists, but I know it's not true."

This statement, regardless of context, nearly always guarantees that you're wrong.

But ok then, what's your alternative?
Click to expand...
He won't tell us what his alternative theory is.
 
kenkoskinen said:
...The unheard of idea is that EM repulsion acts on a global level repelling or counteracting gravity.
Click to expand...
As I said, that's your straw man.

I find this so absurd, that I call it woo science and am willing to prove it to be so ... before I leave this thread. It will go to SMT.
Click to expand...
Cool! You'll need to create a new thread for SMT - unless you can persuade a mod to move the relevant chunk over...
 
kenkoskinen said:
Additionally, even in the everyday world towards it has been asserted that EM repulsion acts on neutral objects. When one sits on chair EM repulsion supposedly repels their derriere up a little, against gravity. It has also been asserted that this is universally accepted by physicists, but I know it's not true. There isn't a stitch of experimental evidence and not a single clear, specific line written by any main stream physicist about this kind of EM repulsion. Skeptics like to drop the "woo" word on people who accept things that are irrational and/or without substantiation i.e. detections, experimental evidence etc. I find this so absurd, that I call it woo science and am willing to prove it to be so ... before I leave this thread. It will go to SMT.
Click to expand...

Please google 'electromagnetic normal force'. You'll see very quickly that this sort of electromagnetic repulsion is in fact widely accepted, experimentally verified, quantified, and measurable. It really is about as mainstream as you can get.
 
Probably Not said:
Please google 'electromagnetic normal force'. You'll see very quickly that this sort of electromagnetic repulsion is in fact widely accepted, experimentally verified, quantified, and measurable. It really is about as mainstream as you can get.
Click to expand...

Ken is going to overturn physics single handed. And without a theory or maths. Surely that deserves two Nobel prizes?
 
kenkoskinen said:
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 ionized particles and energy in the Sun's plasmic field make up the mass/energy that gravitates. In other words, gravity acts on the collective field's mass/energy which means the collective swirls of ionized particles gravitate. Counter forces per sec against gravity don't exist in planets, moons, comets, stars etc. However the outward radiation from nuclear fusion in stars does fight gravity. Obviously we don't see this in planets.
Click to expand...

Hi kenkoskinen,

I was asked to contribute to this thread, so I poked my head in. I haven't read much of it, so I apologize in advance if I'm misunderstanding your position or addressing something other than it.

Consider for a moment two massive objects initially at rest in outer space (iron balls, maybe). Let's suppose for a moment there are no external forces acting on those balls other than the gravity of the other ball. As you know, the two balls will accelerate towards each other due to gravity, and so will fall together - accelerating at a faster and faster rate as they go - until they collide.

When they collide, they will suddenly stop (if they collide inelastically and stick) or bounce off (if they collide elastically). Either way, a force other than gravity has evidently acted on them to cause such a rapid acceleration. What is that force? It's electromagnetism, the same force that's responsible for holding together molecules and solid materials of all sorts, and that keeps you from falling through the chair your sitting in as you read this. Incidentally, it's also the force that maintains the shape of those balls and prevents them from collapsing under their own gravity.

Now consider two massive particles. Let's say these are true point particles (zero size), and again, no forces other than gravity. If they start at relative rest, they will fall together. At a certain point they will come so close together than their combined gravitational field will be so large they are surrounded by an event horizon from which not even light can escape - i.e. they will have formed a black hole.*
So it is indeed electromagnetism that prevents the earth (for example) from collapsing into a black hole. Turn off E&M and the earth would collapse on itself. The same goes for the sun, which is supported by radiation pressure (it's a standard undergraduate physics problem to estimate the size of a star by balancing gravity against electromagnetic radiation pressure). The case of neutron stars is a bit different - those are not held up by E&M - but let's start with the simple cases.

*Actually if they were true zero-sized point particles each would already be a black hole - but they would still collide and form a larger hole.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
In that case I suggest you drop your "woo" routine and consider that what people are telling you could be true. Then check out the Wikipedia link, from which you can follow its references and read up on some fascinating, REAL stuff.
Click to expand...
I have considered it and know it doesn't work like that. People boo and woo me often ... I reply in kind and of course ... the complaints arise from the wolf pack. This strange EM repulsion isn't known or universally accepted by physicists. There hasn't been any detections or experimental proof. Why is that? I've asked repeatedly for specific, references & all I got was some general info on EM.

I've read many unconvincing arguments though ... but physics isn't a word game; no evidence, no references = no proof for this strange EM repulsion. In the meantime I don't care about the nasty words or tactics. Hopefully the SMT people will weigh in on the issue.
 
sol invictus said:
Hi kenkoskinen,

I was asked to contribute to this thread, so I poked my head in. I haven't read much of it, so I apologize in advance if I'm misunderstanding your position or addressing something other than it.

Consider for a moment two massive objects initially at rest in outer space (iron balls, maybe). Let's suppose for a moment there are no external forces acting on those balls other than the gravity of the other ball. As you know, the two balls will accelerate towards each other due to gravity, and so will fall together - accelerating at a faster and faster rate as they go - until they collide.

When the collide, they will stop (if they collide inelastically and stick) or bounce off (if they collide elastically). Either way, a force other than gravity has evidently acted on them to cause such a sudden acceleration. What is that force? It's electromagnetism, the same force that's responsible for molecules and solid materials of all sorts. Incidentally, it's also the force that maintains the shape of those balls and prevents them from collapsing under their own gravity.

Now consider two massive particles. Let's say these are true point particles (zero size), and again, no forces other than gravity. If they start at relative rest, they will fall together. At a certain point they will come so close together than their combined gravitational field will be so large they are surrounded by an event horizon from which not even light can escape - i.e. they will have formed a black hole.*
So it is indeed electromagnetism that prevents the earth (for example) from collapsing into a black hole. Turn off E&M and the earth would collapse on itself. The same goes for the sun, which is held up by radiation pressure. The case of neutron stars is a bit different - those are not held up by E&M - but let's start with the simple cases.

*Actually if they were true zero-sized point particles each would already be a black hole - but they would still collide and form a larger hole.
Click to expand...

Take note Ken,the man knows what he is talking about. Do not make yourself look foolish by crossing swords with him.
 
kenkoskinen said:
I have considered it and know it doesn't work like that. People boo and woo me often ... I reply in kind and of course ... the complaints arise from the wolf pack. This strange EM repulsion isn't known or universally accepted by physicists. There hasn't been any detections or experimental proof. Why is that? I've asked repeatedly for specific, references & all I got was some general info on EM.

I've read many unconvincing arguments though ... but physics isn't a word game; no evidence, no references = no proof for this strange EM repulsion. In the meantime I don't care about the nasty words or tactics. Hopefully the SMT people will weigh in on the issue.
Click to expand...

It's mainstream physics.
 
A Visit

Thanks for your visit.

sol invictus said:
Hi kenkoskinen,

I was asked to contribute to this thread, so I poked my head in. I haven't read much of it, so I apologize in advance if I'm misunderstanding your position or addressing something other than it.

Consider for a moment two massive objects initially at rest in outer space (iron balls, maybe). Let's suppose for a moment there are no external forces acting on those balls other than the gravity of the other ball. As you know, the two balls will accelerate towards each other due to gravity, and so will fall together - accelerating at a faster and faster rate as they go - until they collide.

When they collide, they will suddenly stop (if they collide inelastically and stick) or bounce off (if they collide elastically). Either way, a force other than gravity has evidently acted on them to cause such a rapid acceleration. What is that force? It's electromagnetism, the same force that's responsible for holding together molecules and solid materials of all sorts, and that keeps you from falling through the chair your sitting in as you read this. Incidentally, it's also the force that maintains the shape of those balls and prevents them from collapsing under their own gravity.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean? You correctly claimed gravity alone caused the accelerations leading to the impact. After the impact, you then speak of a rapid acceleration being caused by another force and then call it EM? I don't follow this. Do you mean the acceleration of a rebound immediately after impact? Anyway, yes EM bonds the atoms/molecules of the balls together. And yes when solids collide you can have a rebound (if that's what you meant?)

Now consider two massive particles. Let's say these are true point particles (zero size), and again, no forces other than gravity. If they start at relative rest, they will fall together. At a certain point they will come so close together than their combined gravitational field will be so large they are surrounded by an event horizon from which not even light can escape - i.e. they will have formed a black hole.*
So it is indeed electromagnetism that prevents the earth (for example) from collapsing into a black hole. Turn off E&M and the earth would collapse on itself. The same goes for the sun, which is supported by radiation pressure (it's a standard undergraduate physics problem to estimate the size of a star by balancing gravity against electromagnetic radiation pressure). The case of neutron stars is a bit different - those are not held up by E&M - but let's start with the simple cases.

*Actually if they were true zero-sized point particles each would already be a black hole - but they would still collide and form a larger hole.
Click to expand...

*That's what I was thinking as I read it, but you caught yourself. I fail to see the point in the black hole example?

I ran a thought experiment on the Earth and took away EM. There would be a loss of volume and a loss of mass/energy. However, there would not be enough mass/energy left to create a black hole. The prior world's mass wasn't even enough i.e. we subtracted EM and having enough mass/energy is key in generating a black hole. However it proves that the Earth is held together by EM and gravity. Jupiter is a gas giant & gravity is the key to holding it together. The Earth has lots of molecules in the solid state and the EM bonds are stronger than in gases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom