• 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:
Oh yeah! Why isn't it time for you to finally post a specific reference to your imaginary physics ... that you claim is universally accepted? How many times do I have to ask? Also if this is the greatest jam, why don't you write a concise post describing your so-called thinking? I call a phony theory and you're continuing to dodge! Keep hiding, but your posts are on record. Newton's laws do NOT mean everything should have collapsed into a black hole, even given EM factors. Where do you people get this crazy stuff, and of course it is universally accepted by physicist?
Click to expand...

What is the direction of the net force, Ken ?

And why don't you answer MY question as well ?
 
The Shoe is on the Other Foot

dafydd said:
The onus is on you to propound an alternative theory,which you have singularly failed to do. We do not take you seriously. Do you have anything to say about materialism? That is the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...

I've repeatedly asked for specific references and been taken for wild goose rides. I've also searched and must conclude, there isn't anything out there on this. I now realize I'm only critiquing snippets of ideas, hence I'm asking some one, any one of you, to concisely write what this thing is!

I'm not the one who is introducing new physics that extends quantum electrodynamics (QED). It is part of the Standard Model and one of the most successful theories in the history of science. QED does NOT include this strange form of EM repulsion! The onus is on one or more of you guys/gals to write a paper that explains and proves it. The shoe is on the other foot.

Some of you want to make this debate as one against me. That's not it! Your up against QED. However, if some eventually does extend QED it would be exciting news to the scientific/physics community and to the world.

Physics/cosmology was being discussed on this thread before I joined in. A JREF moderator has already ruled on your question & you know that! "It's on-going!"
 
kenkoskinen said:
I'm not the one who is introducing new physics that extends quantum electrodynamics (QED). It is part of the Standard Model and one of the most successful theories in the history of science. QED does NOT include this strange form of EM repulsion! The onus is on one or more of you guys/gals to write a paper that explains and proves it. The shoe is on the other foot.
Click to expand...

So you haven't been paying attention, then.
 
Funny Mater/Gravity

Belz... said:
What is the direction of the net force, Ken ?

And why don't you answer MY question as well ?
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
What is the direction of the net force, Ken ?

And why don't you answer MY question as well ?
Click to expand...

Belz, stars form in large clouds called nebulae. Gravity holds them together but the value of gravity isn't the same throughout the cloud. Density pockets appear and in the higher ones star birth is possible. The force of gravity always depends on the mass/energy/density in a locality. However gravity attracts in the presence of any mass/energy i.e. even to every Standard Model particle. Belz, there isn't just one direction.

Sure when we stand on the ground gravity keeps us from floating. However even the particles of the air/atmosphere above us gravitates some. If you go into the gravitational center of the earth we reach a point of zero gravity. This is so because mater in all directions around/above that point attracts and cancels. So you can see understanding the dynamics of gravity isn't as simple as some suppose.
 
kenkoskinen said:
Yes PixieMisa's thought experiment involves electric dipoles. Ridiculous, such an object has never been seen. However I answered his question ... why is he asking it again? Yes ... such a thing would have to be global. And yes ... any repulsion that keeps me from falling into the earth can be likened to anti-gravity. Afterall, that's the claim. It fights gravity! Nonsense.
Click to expand...

Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. You're it.
 
kenkoskinen said:
Belz, stars form in large clouds called nebulae. Gravity holds them together but the value of gravity isn't the same throughout the cloud. Density pockets appear and in the higher ones star birth is possible.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Density. Not mass, as you previously stated. As explained to you before, any mass at all will become a black hole, absent a force to resist gravity.

The force of gravity always depends on the mass/energy/density in a locality.
Click to expand...

You, sir, are all over the place.

Sure when we stand on the ground gravity keeps us from floating. However even the particles of the air/atmosphere above us gravitates some. If you go into the gravitational center of the earth we reach a point of zero gravity. This is so because mater in all directions around/above that point attracts and cancels.
Click to expand...

Yes, but this doesn't adress my question: What happens to the two masses I described in my scenario, and why ?
 
kenkoskinen said:
I'm not the one who is introducing new physics that extends quantum electrodynamics (QED). It is part of the Standard Model and one of the most successful theories in the history of science. QED does NOT include this strange form of EM repulsion!
Click to expand...

Are you seriously claiming that the standard model of particle physics cannot account for the stiffness of materials? If so, it certainly wouldn't be one of the most successful theories in science - it would be an embarrassing failure! Fortunately for the standard model, that's not the case.

It's hard to crush a rock by squeezing it in your hand. As you squeeze the outside of the rock, its internal pressure increases in proportion to the pressure you apply, so that it keeps its shape (with a slight deformation).

If that rock were floating far out in outer space, its own gravity squeezes it. In response, its internal pressure increases (very slightly if it's a small rock), allowing it to keep its shape (with a slight deformation).

If the rock is pretty big, it's not so different from the earth.

If it's really big, the pressure of gravity gets so large that the internal pressure cannot resist it, and it collapses - either into a black hole, or possibly into another phase capable of sustaining a greater pressure.
 
Last edited:
Mini-black holes

Originally Posted by PixyMisa
It doesn't need to be infinite, Ken. To produce a black hole, all it needs to be is unopposed.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
And this is the part that Ken won't read. And yet it's crucial.
Click to expand...

In the real world there isn't any such thing as being unopposed. This is only a feature we can plug into thought experiments. We determine the existence and action of forces by observing/detecting the behavior of particles/objects. All the forces and quantum principles affect particles/objects.

Gravity obeys the mass/energy/density in localities. When it becomes high enough it over powers the influence of other forces and principles such as the Pauli Exclusion Principle. The other things could be called resistances but gravity wins when the conditions are right. The reason some scientists think that mini-black holes could form in the LHC is there might be sufficient mass/energy produced in tiny localities in the wake of high energy collisions. We haven't seen one yet ... but maybe one or more will appear. Stephen Hawking doubts it and he has the most to gain from the observation of the decay of a mini-black hole i.e. Hawking radiation.

In the LHC the resistance factors are as NOT as high as in the macro-world. In any case, the issue isn't just about resistances or opposing forces/principles. Its about having sufficient mass/energy/density in a locality.

Let me be clear ... I acknowledge resistance factors to gravity. After all shoot a rocket up and its power has to overcome gravity's attraction and reach the escape velocity in order to get into outer space. I DO NOT agree in the undetected and strange EM repulsion that you people insist on.
 
Last edited:
Neutral Barrier

sol invictus said:
Quantum EM doen't exactly "repulse" neutral matter. What it does do is bind it together and hold it at a certain (material-dependent) preferred density. If you try to squeeze it to a higher density, it resists. If you try to stretch it to a lower density, it resists. That should be quite familiar to you (think of a sponge, or a spring).

In fairness, you're correct that one cannot really understand this behavior without including both quantum mechanics and the strong nuclear force.

Gravity tries to squeeze everything. Materials resist (up to a point).
Click to expand...

Quantum EM doesn't "repulse" neutral matter." There isn't any evidence or detections for this. If there was it would have to extend QED. Since neutral matter does NOT EM interact, there is a neutral barrier. A good analogy to this is the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Although it isn't one of the four forces it does resist fermions from occupying the same state. The neutral barrier exists but yes squeeze it enough it can also be overcome. Again, the undetected strange EM repulsion doesn't exist.
 
Last edited:
kenkoskinen said:
Quantum EM doesn't "repulse" neutral matter." There isn't any evidence or detections for this. If there was it would have to extend QED. Since neutral matter does NOT EM interact, there is a neutral barrier. A good analogy to this is the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Although it isn't one of the four forces it does resist fermions from occupying the same state. The neutral barrier exists but yes squeeze it enough it can also be overcome. Again, the undetected strange EM resistance doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

You lecturing a physics professor,now that is funny. Here's a tip. A thought experiment involves actual thinking.
 
kenkoskinen said:
Quantum EM doesn't "repulse" neutral matter." There isn't any evidence or detections for this. If there was it would have to extend QED. Since neutral matter does NOT EM interact, there is a neutral barrier. A good analogy to this is the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Although it isn't one of the four forces it does resist fermions from occupying the same state. The neutral barrier exists but yes squeeze it enough it can also be overcome. Again, the undetected strange EM resistance doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

It does. You can gainsay it as much as you like,but that will never make it go away. If you want to convince anyone you will have to provide a theory with some maths,but you are always going to do that later. Is it later yet?
 
A Strange & Surprising Accusation!

sol invictus said:
Are you seriously claiming that the standard model of particle physics cannot account for the stiffness of materials? If so, it certainly wouldn't be one of the most successful theories in science - it would be an embarrassing failure! Fortunately for the standard model, that's not the case.
Click to expand...

Sol, where did you get the idea I'm claiming SM doesn't account for the stiffness of materials? OF COURSE it does. I'm saying the strange EM repulsion talked about on this thread isn't in QED! If it is true, QED would need to be amended. Yet ... QED is one of the most successful models (a member of SM) in the history of science!

It's hard to crush a rock by squeezing it in your hand. As you squeeze the outside of the rock, its internal pressure increases in proportion to the pressure you apply, so that it keeps its shape (with a slight deformation).

If that rock were floating far out in outer space, its own gravity squeezes it. In response, its internal pressure increases (very slightly if it's a small rock), allowing it to keep its shape (with a slight deformation).

If the rock is pretty big, it's not so different from the earth.

If it's really big, the pressure of gravity gets so large that the internal pressure cannot resist it, and it collapses - either into a black hole, or possibly into another phase capable of sustaining a greater pressure.
Click to expand...

Okay ... but the rock has to accrete matter in order to increase the mass/energy/density in its locality.
 
Last edited:
QED ... Is it wrong?

dafydd said:
It does. You can gainsay it as much as you like,but that will never make it go away. If you want to convince anyone you will have to provide a theory with some maths,but you are always going to do that later. Is it later yet?
Click to expand...

So ... you're saying QED is wrong and needs amendment. Okay ... do your detections, write your paper and insert your maths. I'm not reporting on new phenomena ... you are!
 
kenkoskinen said:
So ... you're saying QED is wrong and needs amendment. Okay ... do your detections, write your paper and insert your maths. I'm not reporting on new phenomena ... you are!
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with QED. Where did I say that? You either do not read other's posts or your reading comprehension is very poor. We know that electromagnetism is not a new phenomena. You will never win your Nobel prize this way.
 
Discussions Aren't Lectures

dafydd said:
You lecturing a physics professor,now that is funny. Here's a tip. A thought experiment involves actual thinking.
Click to expand...

Okay ... I've even created some thought experiments. Try it ... it's fun! If Sol is a physics prof ... that's nice. Our discussion isn't a lecture ... but whatever you want to call it, it can continue if he likes!
 
It's About Physics ... NOT about

dafydd said:
There is nothing wrong with QED. Where did I say that? You either do not read other's posts or your reading comprehension is very poor. We know that electromagnetism is not a new phenomena. You will never win your Nobel prize this way.
Click to expand...

I agree QED is great. It's just that it doesn't contain your undetected strange EM repulsion. Read it again. I think you can comprehend it, but I don't think your all that interested in the physics. I suspect winning an argument is your goal
 
Go Get that Nobel Prize!

dafydd said:
There is nothing wrong with QED. Where did I say that? You either do not read other's posts or your reading comprehension is very poor. We know that electromagnetism is not a new phenomena. You will never win your Nobel prize this way.
Click to expand...

I agree QED is great! It doesn't contain your undetected strange EM repulsion! If it is real prove it ... there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you at the end of the rainbow. All you have to do is, extend QED! Good Luck!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom