excuse me, i did in the op and it was explicity clear by asking about gravity vs electromagnetism. I really don't care for you 'im the victim' routine every single time. this is in fringe and then i further pointed out that it wasn't about the flat earth yet you didn't bother and that is not my issue.
Tesla vs Einstein
- Thread starter birch
- Start date
excuse me, i did in the op and it was explicity clear by asking about gravity vs electromagnetism. I really don't care for you 'im the victim' routine every single time. this is in fringe and then i further pointed out that it wasn't about the flat earth yet you didn't bother and that is not my issue.
According to his explanation, matter/mass is a dielectric condensate and gravity is a hybrid result, not separate from electromagnetism. Can you watch his explanation starting at 15:00 and what is wrong with his theory or if there is none either way.
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
Jupiter does have rings, as does Neptune and Uranus, they just aren't as prominent.
What does "dielectric condensate" mean, in your own words?
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Your OP....
So...gravity is pseudoscience and electromagnetism is real?
Yeh a great starter.
And I dont get your victim every single time thing but I do sence there is no point encouraging you to raise what it is you wish to discuss about gravity.
Given your less than friendly attitude, your problem not mine, I will leave it to others to enjoy your company.
Alex
a solid/matter with mass. this isn't my theory, this debate isn't about my idea, tell me what he means then.
he says there is no time and/or debatable. time as we know it or acceleration and the result of different factors of electromagnetism is where gravity is one of the results but is not separate from electromagnetism according to the explanation in the clip.
Are you sure you're not talking about "dielectric constant?" That's a well known parameter, and represents how much electrical energy you can store in an electric field in a given material. (So something with a high dielectric constant makes a good capacitor.)
ajanta
Registered Senior Member
But the thread is about "Tesla vs Einstein
ajanta
Registered Senior Member
It is not about 0 sec time duration of photon's reference frame that in spite of this pair production is possible
Without time who will describe something and observe ?
But if you look up to interaction about DM then there is enough time but no interaction with electronically than gravitationally.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Yes.But the thread is about "Tesla vs Einstein
In fact, I did eventually do as Birch asked, and looked at the video from the 15min mark to 16 mins or so. All there was was some crap about the pyramids and an idiotic diatribe (from some bloke covered in tattoos and with probable marijuana psychosis) against Einstein, on the basis that he had not, unlike Tesla, contributed to the development of the US electricity grid!
It's all "Chariots of the Gods, Man - they practically own S America."
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Sounds like my stand was far from unreasonable thanks for confirming my suspicion.Yes.
In fact, I did eventually do as Birch asked, and looked at the video from the 15min mark to 16 mins or so. All there was was some crap about the pyramids and an idiotic diatribe (from some bloke covered in tattoos and with probable marijuana psychosis) against Einstein, on the basis that he had not, unlike Tesla, contributed to the development of the US electricity grid!
It's all "Chariots of the Gods, Man - they practically own S America."
Alex
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Oh absolutely. I remain amazed that birch posted it, apparently in seriousness.
But that's the thing I still struggle with, after all these years. There just are people who can't tell when something is preposterous crap. It's nothing to do with understanding science - I learned the distinction from my family, but my mother was an English teacher and my father had read history and could not wire an electric plug. It's a a basic thing to do with rationality and critical faculties: recognition that there is a lot of crap out there and exercising some caution in what one takes on board.
Gravity is associated with mass. Correct. Mass is associated with Neutrons and Protons. Neutrons and Protons are associated with quarks. Quark is a charged particle. So, I think Gravity can be associated with charged particles also.
If we consider gravity as a mechanical force(F=ma), then this force is related with electromagnetism as is evident in Generators and Motors.
Last edited:
Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
To take your line of reasoning a step further, my model of a universal ether which serves as a background matrix for ever-smaller quantum-force units, such as you mentioned, my ether model would have it that gravitational attraction between solid bodies occurs as an inertial effect due to contraction of the ether, in the "auric zone" between them. The ether contracts because this auric zone is more energized than is the ether outside of this zone, and as ether units resonationally form connections with each other, there is less space separating them than when they were unconnected.
This still would leave open a second theoretic consideration, which is how the consequent gravity field is distributed in space. In my model, this is almost a separate question, due to the very wide spreading-out of gravity forces, compared to electromagnetism. But the two (the inertial effect and the field effect) are related, with the inertial effect being comparatively an almost left-behind "incidental" one, in the broader cosmological sense.
ajanta
Registered Senior Member
And photon has 0 rest mass and no charge but it can generate gravitational force.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
So presumably you would argue that a neutron star would have no mass, right?
ajanta
Registered Senior Member
Are you kidding !Gravity is already associated with charged particles(electron, proton...)
Gravitational force is given by the usual F=GmM/r^2, which doesn't care at all about composition.
Last edited:
Well, neutrons are made of two down quarks (-1/3) and one up quark (+2/3) so the net charge is zero - but you could consider a neutron "made of charged particles."
But at a higher level the claim is silly. Claiming that gravity is mediated by charge (because things that are charged interact with gravity) is like claiming that horses run on electrical charge, because they eat grass and grass is made of charged particles.