Tesla vs Einstein

birch said:
According to his explanation, matter/mass is a dielectric condensate and gravity is a hybrid result, not separate from electromagnetism.
Click to expand...
I don't know what a "dielectric condensate" is. The term "dielectric" refers roughly to the electrical conductivity of something, and "condensate" just means something is "condensed" from something else.

So, maybe he is saying in an unnecessarily obfuscatory way that matter is a condensed form of electrical charge, or something like that.

Of course, we know that ordinary matter contains charged particles. For example, atoms contain electrons and protons, both of which carry electric charge. However, most atoms are electrically neutral over all. And yet, they are still subject to gravitational force.

One question you might want to think about: why is gravity always attractive and never repulsive, whereas electrical forces can be either attractive or repulsive?

If gravity were really some form of electromagnetism, couldn't we make matter that "anti-gravitated" - falling upwards rather than downwards? If not, why not?

Coming back to the "new" theory that gravity is electromagnetism: there's nothing wrong, of course, in proposing any theory. But at some point the rubber needs to hit the road. You need to show how the new theory makes quantitatively accurate predictions about what is observed experimentally.

So, the question is: does this theory have the same or greater explanatory power as our current theories of electromagnetism and gravity, in which mass is treated as separate from charge?

In this theory, could we have a ball with mass 10 and charge zero, or a ball with mass 1 and charge 10? Because all experiments indicate that such things exist in practice. Any theory of mass and charge must account for this, among other things.

hansda said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why is gravity always attractive and never repulsive? If we have a collection of electrons, all have negative charge, but apparently positive mass. Why?

If we consider gravity as a mechanical force(F=ma), then this force is related with electromagnetism as is evident in Generators and Motors.
Click to expand...
Explain how a generator or a motor relies on gravity.
 
James R said:
If gravity were really some form of electromagnetism, couldn't we make matter that "anti-gravitated" - falling upwards rather than downwards? If not, why not?
Click to expand...

He use an example of how a beachball 'falls upwards' even though there is all that water with greater mass above it, yet it still floats upwards. he questioned why the water above it being of greater mass and weight is not keeping the ball under whereas an anchor does fall because of it's heavier weight.

Since the earth is a sphere/circle then the explanation is that gravity (and the earth is rotating at high speed like a centrifuge) is keeping our feet planted to the ground so we don't fly off into the atmosphere every which way yet birds and planes can take off in flight.
 
birch said:
He use an example of how a beachball 'falls upwards' even though there is all that water with greater mass above it, yet it still floats upwards. he questioned why the water above it being of greater mass and weight is not keeping the ball under whereas an anchor does fall because of it's heavier weight.

Since the earth is a sphere/circle then the explanation is that gravity (and the earth is rotating at high speed like a centrifuge) is keeping our feet planted to the ground so we don't fly off into the atmosphere every which way yet birds and planes can take off in flight.
Click to expand...
Is this a text version of spot the difference between these two pictures?

How many differences between reality and ????? <<< I'm lost for a descriptive word sorry

:)
 
exchemist said:
As I said earlier, I suspect marijuana psychosis in whoever made this video. :D
Click to expand...
I must admit I have not watched the video

I am so certain I cannot dumb my IQ down low enough to watch it all the way through

:)
 
birch said:
He use an example of how a beachball 'falls upwards' even though there is all that water with greater mass above it, yet it still floats upwards.
Click to expand...
Stating that he does not understand buoyancy, does not bolster his claims about gravity.
 
The model of Ether I use offers a possible explanation for how neutron stars are formed.

When a star loses much of its internal energy, and destructs, the violence of the destruction would be extreme, and quite conceivably could "erase" the atomic "signatures" in the star system. In such a process, protons, neutrons, and electrons, freed-up from the atoms, would be released. In an Ether medium, like-particle units would tend to follow like-pathways through the ether. Thus, protonics would aggregate into a new star, or Nova, while the electrons would enter space as "gamma" rays and other cosmic radiation, and the neutrons from the destroyed atoms, having like-properties, and in a "crowded" state in this area of space, would likewise follow similar pathways through the ether medium, and group together, as a new neutron star. (The neutron star would then leave the area of the Nova, toward neutronic attractors in outer space.)

I don't believe quantum/relativity physics presently offers a similar simple, rational, model for how neutron stars could have formed..
 
Michael Anteski said:
The model of Ether I use offers a possible explanation for how neutron stars are formed.

When a star loses much of its internal energy, and destructs, the violence of the destruction would be extreme, and quite conceivably could "erase" the atomic "signatures" in the star system. In such a process, protons, neutrons, and electrons, freed-up from the atoms, would be released. In an Ether medium, like-particle units would tend to follow like-pathways through the ether. Thus, protonics would aggregate into a new star, or Nova, while the electrons would enter space as "gamma" rays and other cosmic radiation, and the neutrons from the destroyed atoms, having like-properties, and in a "crowded" state in this area of space, would likewise follow similar pathways through the ether medium, and group together, as a new neutron star. (The neutron star would then leave the area of the Nova, toward neutronic attractors in outer space.)

I don't believe quantum/relativity physics presently offers a similar simple, rational, model for how neutron stars could have formed..
Click to expand...

I confess from the go go I do not understand much of Physics especially when the post contains so many formula

This post does not contain formula so I thought my two neurones might handle it

However the post contains to many qualifiers to pick out any grain of any idea to analyse

I thought the idea of the presence of Ether in space died years ago unless this is another brand of Ether

I do know of the liquid form which can give people strange ideas if sniffed for to long

:)
 
GR doesnt need an eather but what you think what must flying by in every direction in the remotest part of space I call that eather?? radiation CMBR the odd particle.. I see a soup billions of bits even without the particles that pop in and out.
Think of the enornmity each point has an almost infinite no of paths that can pass thru that point and the point right next has an almost infinite number of paths thru it... and so for every point.
I like to imagine little balls and little waves, pool balls whatever and try to visualise the stuff all flying by at C or c.. I wish I could do an animation.. Mmmmmthe poolball universe???
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
GR doesnt need an eather but what you think what must flying by in every direction in the remotest part of space I call that eather?? radiation CMBR the odd particle.. I see a soup billions of bits even without the particles that pop in and out.
Think of the enornmity each point has an almost infinite no of paths that can pass thru that point and the point right next has an almost infinite number of paths thru it... and so for every point.
I like to imagine little balls and little waves, pool balls whatever and try to visualise the stuff all flying by at C or c.. I wish I could do an animation.. Mmmmmthe poolball universe???
Alex
Click to expand...
Strange I was with mates at our local shopping mall enjoying coffee

The mall does have a free WiFi service but it's not that good

I had just bought a portable WiFi pocket modem so I was explaining how it worked and its benefits over the free mall offering

It's unlocked and I will be taking it to Bali soon as the hotel free WiFi is also deficient

Anyway it got me thinking about what you just described

ALL of the mobile phones being used along with ALL the WiFi makes for a massive soup of radiation and from that soup my poor little phone and pocket WiFi modem have to pick out the signals designated just for them

I don't think the signals get very far from Earth however

But that was another idea you were on about

The rapid expansion of the Universe after the Big Bang

The age of the Universe is put at 13 billion years old from the most distant objects we can see

So from edge to edge 26 billion light years across

However once those distant objects started to emit light it didn't just emit light in our direction

Light also went out forward of the objects direction of travel

I would love to know if that light is attenuated in any manner as we know light is attenuated on its travel towards us

As I think of what is forward of the leading tip of light as being THE INFINITE TOTAL VOID I would think not but the individual light waves would diverge

Forget the relatively short time after the Big Bang before stars lit up we are now looking at our universe being, from the leading tip of light going forward from the most distant objects either side of the Universe, 52 billion light years across

If later space telescopes pick up objects even further out I contend you can multiply that distance to find out the span of our Universe

I call it The Michael Span and may god keep safe all those who observe it

:)
 
Last edited:
birch said:
He use an example of how a beachball 'falls upwards' even though there is all that water with greater mass above it, yet it still floats upwards. he questioned why the water above it being of greater mass and weight is not keeping the ball under whereas an anchor does fall because of it's heavier weight.
Click to expand...
It's actually the water that causes the ball to float upwards. The water pressure at the bottom of the ball is greater than it is at the top of the ball, and that pressure difference causes an upwards force on the ball. The total weight of the ball (its material and the air inside it) is less than that upwards pressure force. In the case of the anchor, the upwards pressure force is still there, but the weight of the anchor is far greater, so the anchor sinks.

Since the earth is a sphere/circle then the explanation is that gravity (and the earth is rotating at high speed like a centrifuge) is keeping our feet planted to the ground so we don't fly off into the atmosphere every which way yet birds and planes can take off in flight.
Click to expand...
Gravity has nothing to do with rotation. In fact, the Earth's rotation makes us a little lighter than we would be if it wasn't rotating. It's like the centrifugal force of the rotation is trying to throw us off the Earth into space, but the force of gravity is stronger.

Birds and planes fly by pushing air downwards. Physics tell us that if you push air downwards rapidly enough you will move upwards.

I'm not sure what the Earth's rotation, or birds and planes, have to do with gravity being the same as electromagnetism.
 
Could we take a ball deep enough that its volume is so compressed so that it crossed over to a negative bouancy... How deep?
Alex
 
Michael 345 said:
I must admit I have not watched the video

I am so certain I cannot dumb my IQ down low enough to watch it all the way through

:)
Click to expand...
Nor did I: I watched from the 15 min mark as birch had asked, but baled after about a minute - the stupid was too strong for me to take.
 
James R said:
In fact, the Earth's rotation makes us a little lighter than we would be if it wasn't rotating. It's like the centrifugal force of the rotation is trying to throw us off the Earth into space, but the force of gravity is stronger.
Click to expand...

If you weigh 90 kg (198.41 lbs)

at the North Pole

no centrifugal force

you will weigh 89.81 kg (198 lb) at the

equator at about 620 klm per hour

centrifugal force present

trying to throw you off

Horray for gravity we stay on

:)
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Could we take a ball deep enough that its volume is so compressed so that it crossed over to a negative bouancy... How deep?
Alex
Click to expand...
Yes to the first part

Don't know to the second part

At the bottom of the Mariana Trench the water column above exerts a pressure of 1,086 bars (15,750 psi), more than 1,000 times the standard atmospheric pressure at sea level

Wikipedia

But I am sure the ball would succumb well before such depth is reached

:)
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Could we take a ball deep enough that its volume is so compressed so that it crossed over to a negative bouancy... How deep?
Click to expand...
No.

Bouyancy was described brilliantly by Archimedes 2000 years ago. It turns out that the upward buoyant force on any object in water depends only on how much water it displaces. It doesn't depend on depth.

So, provided your ball doesn't collapse under the water pressure, it will have the same upward buoyant force on it regardless of whether it is 1 metre below the surface or at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

Of course, a beach ball won't work for that experiment, because it couldn't withstand the pressure. An appropriately designed submarine will do the job nicely, though.
 
James R said:
No.

Bouyancy was described brilliantly by Archimedes 2000 years ago. It turns out that the upward buoyant force on any object in water depends only on how much water it displaces. It doesn't depend on depth.

So, provided your ball doesn't collapse under the water pressure, it will have the same upward buoyant force on it regardless of whether it is 1 metre below the surface or at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.

Of course, a beach ball won't work for that experiment, because it couldn't withstand the pressure. An appropriately designed submarine will do the job nicely, though.
Click to expand...
Hang on he's right, surely, if the ball is compressible, which, in the scenario he describes, it is. Any diver knows very well that one of the issues is the variable buoyancy in the jacket or dry suit, due to exactly this sort of thing. If his hypothetical beach ball is made from a material with a density >1, there will come a pressure at which the remaining air volume provides insufficient buoyancy to overcome its weight, and it will sink.
 
James R said:
Of course, a beach ball won't work for that experiment, because it couldn't withstand the pressure. An appropriately designed submarine will do the job nicely, though.
Click to expand...
I was not clear.
My ball is special it can not colapse or rupture.
Its volume will decrease under pressure a d there must be a pressure thatcauses the volume to diminish to a pointwhere bouancy disappears.
Alex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top