My argument against materialism

[dafydd]

Okay prove it! Why not even one specific line from the physics community on this unusual EM repulsion?

I am not here to teach you. Read the links that have been provided for your edification.

 

[Belz...]

I have considered it and know it doesn't work like that.

That's not how learning works. You can't just decide that something doesn't work for you and hand-wave it.

This strange EM repulsion isn't known or universally accepted by physicists.

You are wrong.

And how about that scenario I gave you as homework ?

 

[Belz...]

After the impact, you then speak of a rapid acceleration being caused by another force and then call it EM?

Acceleration is always caused by a force unless we're talking about inflation. So what could it be BUT a force ?

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.

What are you on about ? Since when is there a minimum mass for a black hole ? Some woo-woos are worried about the LHC because of the very real but minute possibility of creating a microscopic black hole. Read that: a very small black hole. The only thing that makes it a black hole is density, not mass.

 

[dafydd]

This strange EM repulsion isn't known or universally accepted by physicists. .

Can you give us the names of some of these physicists?

 

[ehcks]

Acceleration is always caused by a force unless we're talking about inflation. So what could it be BUT a force ?

Isn't pressure a force? What kind of inflation do you mean?

 

[dafydd]

Isn't pressure a force? What kind of inflation do you mean?

This,presumably.
http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm

 

[PixyMisa]

You could have just answered the questions, Ken, but no...

 

[kenkoskinen]

You could have just answered the questions, Ken, bit no...

Pixy I asked you several questions, you didn't answer me. What's this a double standard? Early on I tried to discuss issues with you and got one word, one line non-answers. I posted a rebuttal, you didn't answer it. I asked for specific references and got a few containing general info on EM. You imagined your sources said things they don't. I asked for specifics and didn't get anything. A guy like you, is a guy like you. I'm okay with that, I hope you are. I don't think it matters one way or another ... that much, now really ... does it?

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy I asked you several questions, you didn't answer me.

I did. You didn't like the answers. That's not the same thing.

What's this a double standard? Early on I tried to discuss issues with you and got one word, one line non-answers. I posted a rebuttal, you didn't answer it. I asked for specific references and got a few containing general info on EM.

Ken, the point of the questions was so that you could correct (or at least, identify) your mistake. Instead, you choce to compound it. As you can see, everyone but you understands that it's the electromagnetic force that counteracts gravity and prevents planets (and everything else) from collapsing.

A don't have a theory, as you kept claiming. I never proposed anything novel or controversial. What I told you is universally understood by physicists. It was there in the article on the Roche limit, it was there in the article on electromagnetism. The problem is, you apparently lack the knowledge to see that.

So I asked you four simple questions, to try to gauge how much you understand, so that there could be a conversation. And you refused, over and over again, to answer anything, digging yourself deeper all the time with ever more nonsensical statements.

You imagined your sources said things they don't.

Nope. They say exactly what I said they do.

I asked for specifics and didn't get anything. A guy like you, is a guy like you. I'm okay with that, I hope you are. I don't think it matters one way or another ... that much, now really ... does it?

You got the specifics. Repeatedly. You were unable to understand them. There's nothing I can do about that immediately; the only way forward was to find out just how much you actually did know about physics so that we could proceed from that point.

Given your responses since then, it looks like we need to go back at least as far as Kepler and Galileo. How much time do you have?

 

[PixyMisa]

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?

Yes.

I don't follow this. Do you mean the acceleration of a rebound immediately after impact?

Yes.

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?)

Yes. And that rebound is caused by the repulsive electromagnetic force between the electrons of the atoms of the two bodies. Exactly the same force that keeps planets from collapsing.

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.

Wrong, of course. It would collapse immediately, because you just removed the force that was counterbalancing gravity.

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.

Wrong, of course. There is no minimum mass for black holes. There is a minimum mass for gravity to overwhelm the electromagnetic force preventing collapse.

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.

Irrelevant, of course. Gravity is a force pulling inward. There has to be a counterbalancing force pushing outward - otherwise, by Newton's Laws of Motion, the planet would collapse.

What is that force?

 

[kenkoskinen]

Many Fermions are Electrically Charged!

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?

That is right. Many particles (some are fermions & some are bosons) and not just electrons are electrically charged" quarks, W's, protons, ions etc. The carriers of the EM force are photons and they are bosons. They don't have anything to do with Pauli's Exclusion Principle as it only acts on fermions. That's the problem in writing BIG LETTERS on the screen. If this special form of EM repulsion is real, it still has to be part of EM. EM is always & only carried by photons. However they can only be exchanged between unlike charged fermions & one claim for this so-called EM repulsion is that it acts repulsively between neutrally charge objects. Now, I'd say that's new physics. Woo!

 

[PixyMisa]

That is right. Many particles (some are fermions & some are bosons) and not just electrons are electrically charged" quarks, W's, protons, ions etc. The carriers of the EM force are photons and they are bosons. They don't have anything to do with Pauli's Exclusion Principle as it only acts on fermions.

This is true. The photon is the carrier for the electromagnetic force.

If this special form of EM repulsion is real, it still has to be part of EM. EM is always & only carried by photons.

Yep.

However they can only be exchanged between unlike charged fermions & one claim for this so-called EM repulsion is that it acts repulsively between neutrally charge objects.

Ken, let's say you have two negatively charged objects. Examining only electromagnetism, what is the force between the two?

1. Attraction
2. Repulsion
3. Zero

Now, I'd say that's new physics. Woo!

New to Aristotle, sure.

 

[dafydd]

Yes.


Yes.


Yes. And that rebound is caused by the repulsive electromagnetic force between the electrons of the atoms of the two bodies. Exactly the same force that keeps planets from collapsing.


Wrong, of course. It would collapse immediately, because you just removed the force that was counterbalancing gravity.


Wrong, of course. There is no minimum mass for black holes. There is a minimum mass for gravity to overwhelm the electromagnetic force preventing collapse.


Irrelevant, of course. Gravity is a force pulling inward. There has to be a counterbalancing force pushing outward - otherwise, by Newton's Laws of Motion, the planet would collapse.

What is that force?

I'm sorry,I should have said Pixie Of Key in my earlier post. A thousand apologies.

 

[dafydd]

Ken,why are you making such a fuss about some simple questions that a high school physics student could answer?

 

[dafydd]

It seemed a little odd to be named in the company of Bishadi, I'd forgotten that Bjarne was also.... Reality challenged.

Pixie Of Key is interesting; it's like talking to an energy being from another universe via a chain of seven translator modules, five of which were built by long-extinct alien species so that you only have the very vaguest idea how they work.

And a universe where everything runs on neutrinos. Ken's universe has no EM. Bjarne's has bended space. Bishadi's has energy upon mass. Perhaps we should let these great minds battle it out. How lucky we are to have such geniuses posting here.

 

[Belz...]

Isn't pressure a force? What kind of inflation do you mean?

Universal. The fact that space itself is expanding at an accelerated rate.

 

[Belz...]

That is right. Many particles (some are fermions & some are bosons) and not just electrons are electrically charged" quarks, W's, protons, ions etc. The carriers of the EM force are photons and they are bosons.

And it changes squat diddly doo about the fact that electrons repel one another.

They don't have anything to do with Pauli's Exclusion Principle as it only acts on fermions.

ELECTRONS ARE FERMIONS.

EM is always & only carried by photons.

You're missing the forest for the trees, and amazingly, you are avoiding answering the most salient points in people's posts. I wonder why.

Now, I'd say that's new physics.

No, just stuff that you didn't know.

Woo!

Non sequitur.

 

[Dancing David]

Ken

Um acceleration is a change in vectors, so the two iron balls have vectors approaching each other, when the two balls collide and stick or collide and rebound they experience a change in vectors.

This is called acceleration, so when your car slams into a wall, it is acceleration. Now in common language there is some reference made to acceleration and decceleration, they are actually the same.

Now ...

 

[sol invictus]

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?

I mean the impact itself - so yes, the rebound.

*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?

It shows that, absent non-gravitational forces, collections of objects collapse into black holes.

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.

That isn't correct. The black hole that would form would have less energy than the earth right when you switched off EM, because some energy would be radiated away in gravity waves. The rest would go into the hole. There is no minimum mass/energy for a black hole - its mass can be anything between zero and infinity.

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.

Again, no. See above.

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.

Jupiter is also supported by EM forces. As you go down below its surface it becomes denser and denser, which makes EM interactions more and more important.

Neutron stars really are a different case - they are at nuclear densities, which means the strong force is very important and they can't be understood purely in terms of EM and gravity.

 

[Belz...]

That isn't correct. The black hole that would form would have less energy than the earth right when you switched off EM, because some energy would be radiated away in gravity waves. The rest would go into the hole. There is no minimum mass/energy for a black hole - its mass can be anything between zero and infinity.

I think this is Ken's major misunderstanding here: he seems to think that gravity will only pull you towards the center of mass up to a certain point. This obviously makes no sense: if there is no counter-force involved, any force will simply continue to accelerate whatever it's acting upon. I believe that this is why he didn't answer my hypothetical scenario (similar to yours, in fact): he can see how ridiculous his own ideas are when applied this way.