Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.


Go Back   Christian Forums > Discussion and Debate > Physical & Life Sciences
Register BlogsPrayersJobsArcade Calendar Mark Forums Read

Physical & Life Sciences A forum for physics, biology, chemistry and other physical sciences.

Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Unread 28th June 2013, 01:49 AM
Michael's Avatar
Contributor

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 5th February 2002
Location: Mt. Shasta, California
Posts: 16,743
Blessings: 231,872
My Mood Angelic
Reps: 161,229,080,659,967,392 (power: 161,229,080,659,996)
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by davidbilby View Post
Well, why don't you prove that space-time has a positive charge? This'll be fun.
Ok. Let's start with recent evidence from voyager 1:

Voyager is in a new region of space, and now that place has a name | Basic Space, Scientific American Blog Network

What they are euphamistically calling a "heliosheath depletion region" has a more common name in plasma physics. It's called a "double layer". Alfven wrote all about them. Did you ever read his book Cosmic Plasma by the way?

How about that excess of high energy positrons?

How about we discuss the *real* cause of solar wind?

This means space would be an anode,
It technically means that the plasma around the sun is more positively charged that the surface of the (relatively) cathode sun. Again however, it's a *relative* charge.

and since space-time cannot be charged
The plasma in the ISM can be charged.

- charge being a property of matter,
Ya, specifically that million degree plasma they found all around our galaxy in 2012.

and space-time is not matter - this doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
As long as you *ignore* the charged particles that actually make up "spacetime" and fill the spaces between stars, sure it makes no sense. The moment you realize however that *plasma and even dust* can hold a charge, it's not all that mysterious.

Incomplete from what? It's a geometric concept.
GR is "incomplete" in describing *all* the EM influences of moving charged particles and objects (cathode suns). If you refuse to include those EM features in your cosmology theories, no doubt you'll continue to live in the "dark" ages of cosmology. The moment you open your eyes and *include* those EM field influences in a cosmology theory, you embrace reality as it actually exists, and you ultimately embrace PC/EU theory.

I'm going to skip the redundant arguments.

Why do you think Einstein spent years after the annus mirabilis trying to unite GR and electromagnetism? It isn't a case of 'bits missing', it's case of unification. Gravity is not electromagnetic, and electromagnetism is not gravitational, but we hope that there is a unified field theory that explains both....neither is however "missing a bit".
If you even said "as far as we currently know", you wouldn't sound so ridiculously arrogant. We're still probing subatomic physics at the moment and you and I *both* expect to find some "surprises" in future LHC data.

When we smash electrons and positrons together in the lab, subatomic particles form from those collisions. We really don't know if EM fields do or do not bind the subatomic world. You're *assuming* things again with *great conviction*, without so much as a shred of evidence to support your claim.

Eventually a TOE may tie gravity and EM fields together, with or without your help. The fact Einstein didn't do it, doesn't mean it cannot ever be done. It simply requires more data, and more data related to particle physics. Justatruthseeker brought up several good points about how we currently use EM fields to separate various subatomic particles. That also suggests an EM field connection at the subatomic realm, just like those collider experiments with electrons and positrons which form into subatomic particles. It's also been recently discovered that neutrons also have a layered "structure", with an outer negative shell, a negative core, and a positive layer in between.
__________________
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worth while."
"When the solution is simple, God is answering."
Albert Einstein
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

  #72  
Unread 28th June 2013, 02:34 PM
Michael's Avatar
Contributor

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 5th February 2002
Location: Mt. Shasta, California
Posts: 16,743
Blessings: 231,872
My Mood Angelic
Reps: 161,229,080,659,967,392 (power: 161,229,080,659,996)
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by davidbilby View Post
Nobody claims that. GR is a fantastically accurate theory explaining gravity via a mathematical manifold in four dimensions using Riemannian geometry. It is not in any way "an approximation of electric and magnetic fields"....in any way. Doesn't even begin to discuss such things.
EU/PC does "begin" to discuss these things.

Because that would be part of the field theory of electromagnetism, which is well understood,
It's "well understood" by the likes of computer scientists and particle physicists. It's not "well understood" by astronomers however.

and currently hasn't been reconciled with GR. (this is what Einstein spent most of the rest of his life trying to do!)
It's also what EU/PC theory is about in the final analysis. I'm blown away here to a degree by your comments.

You do seem to accept and realize that it may be possible to reconcile EM theory with GR theory some day. You do seem to accept that GR theory doesn't include the EM effects of moving charged objects (like plasma), yet spacetime must include them.

On the other hand your preferred cosmology theory doesn't even hardly mention them, but *instead* claims that it actually cannot find or see most of the missing mass/energy of the universe. You also *insist* than any attempt to add EM field theory to GR theory is a form of "pseudoscience", while claiming that four different hypothetical entities exist out there somewhere in space?

You're just making stuff up!
Irony overload I'm afraid. You're now trying to stuff curvatons into you hypothetical universe, and you're running around calling the desire to account for the EM field effects of moving charged particles a from of "pseudoscience". Wow! Just "wow".

I really don't grok you david. I know you to be *incredibly* intelligent, and I realize you have an excellent understanding of GR, and probably a pretty good understanding of EM theory as well. What I cannot for the life of me understand is how or why you would resist the idea of putting EM and GR theory together into a single cosmology theory. That seems like a 'dad' move to me. You seem to cherry pick from empirical physics, and from hypothetical physics, and you trash talk any desire to simply merge two forms of empirical physics. That's totally illogical behavior! I don't get it.
__________________
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worth while."
"When the solution is simple, God is answering."
Albert Einstein
  #73  
Unread 28th June 2013, 07:33 PM
Newbie

Gender: Male Married Faith: Atheist Member For 2 Years
 
Join Date: 10th October 2012
Posts: 693
Blessings: 21,101
Reps: 12,387,638,400,015,354 (power: 12,387,638,400,018)
davidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond repute
davidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
As long as you *ignore* the charged particles that actually make up "spacetime"
The penny drops. Michael - can you define space-time for me as you understand it (not as wikipedia understands it)? Serious question. Because that's a large portion of where you're misunderstanding GR.

Because no physicist that I know of - including Alfven or Birkeland, I am sure - is using the definition of space-time that allows it to be charged because it's literally like saying "triangles have electric charge". There are triangular things that have electric charge in the world, I am sure, but the shape "triangle" is not something that has electric charge for obvious reasons.

Space - like the triangle - is an abstract concept. It is not a literal "stuff". You can draw an example of its geometry, just as you can draw an example of the geometry for a triangle - but the actual concept is just that - a concept.

You are confusing the universe and what's in it, with the topological concept of space, and the concept of time.

Things - whose position can be defined within the metric of that space-time - can be charged. In fact, everybody says that, because it's been known for centuries now - but nobody then looks at a theory of the geometry of space-time and says "where's the plasma?" because it's obvious that every single particle that makes up that plasma is localized "on" a space-time metric, and all we're describing...is the topology of the metric. Matter can be doing whatever the heck it likes on that topology - GR simply tells us what happens when it is in motion in free fall and no other forces are acting on it, and how the distribution of matter at any given point in time will affect the topology.

Everything you cited as reasons for space-time having charge....was an example of something that's NOT space-time. Plasma is not space-time. Dust is not space-time. These things are not space-time, and they don't "make up" space-time. They make up part of the universe - for sure - but they aren't part of space-time itself by the definition used by any physicist.

We might say colloquially - plasma is out there "in space" - but that's a vague and incorrect description, a Star Trek like notion of "space, the final frontier" with space being an actual physical stuff, like a playing field, as opposed to a concept of how we describe topology.

Space-time is a topological concept of geometrically assigning coordinates relative to three dimensions of space and one dimension of time to various object such that we can say "this is here, then, and that is there, then, and here's how those two sets of four coordinates relate".

Einstein figured out that the geometry of the space-time we live in is non-Euclidean, that's all GR is - a four dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold description of the geometry of space-time that matches what we observe in the real world at all but quantum scales.
  #74  
Unread 28th June 2013, 08:02 PM
Newbie

Gender: Male Married Faith: Atheist Member For 2 Years
 
Join Date: 10th October 2012
Posts: 693
Blessings: 21,101
Reps: 12,387,638,400,015,354 (power: 12,387,638,400,018)
davidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond repute
davidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
EU/PC does "begin" to discuss these things.
Great! So does Electromagnetism. It's not however a valid criticism of electromagnetism to say...."where's the topology of space-time in this theory?"

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
It's "well understood" by the likes of computer scientists and particle physicists. It's not "well understood" by astronomers however.
I think that's a dangerous generalization. I'm sure I could find droves of computer scientists who don't understand EM field theories - I think you added that to include yourself - and I'm sure I could find quite a few astronomers who are reasonably conversant at advanced levels in plasma physics. How well something is understood doesn't necessarily speak to veracity.

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
It's also what EU/PC theory is about in the final analysis.
How does EU/PC theory attempt to reconcile GR and Electromagnetic field theories into a single scalar field theory? In fact, where are the scalar field theories in EU/PC? Where are the tensors? I don't really see any so far...

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
You do seem to accept and realize that it may be possible to reconcile EM theory with GR theory some day.
Everybody does who works in particle physics. I'm unaware of anybody who doesn't. It's kind of what everybody's working on in the field of theoretical physics, in a sense....

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
You do seem to accept that GR theory doesn't include the EM effects of moving charged objects (like plasma)
Because it's about the topology of space-time, which is a conceptual idea and not actual "stuff". The fabric of space-time is not nylon, or cotton, for example....

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
yet spacetime must include them.
No, a TOE must. Space-time no. Space-time is a topological and geometrical description of the metric which all matter and energy "inhabits". There's not really a good word for that last word....but that'll do.

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
You also *insist* than any attempt to add EM field theory to GR theory is a form of "pseudoscience", while claiming that four different hypothetical entities exist out there somewhere in space?
No, claiming that we've successfully added EM to GR is presently pseudoscience, because we haven't. There is no united field theory that describes both as particular cases, which is what we need....

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Irony overload I'm afraid. You're now trying to stuff curvatons into you hypothetical universe
What's wrong with anything in a hypothetical universe? What matters then is how that hypothetical universe matches with our observed universe. You hypothesize an as yet unseen wavelength independent scattering method. No such thing is known, so you've technically tried to stuff inelastic scattering into your hypothetical universe....no difference. That's really not a problem, but we are then allowed to test your hypothesis. Hypothesis is where you make stuff up...absolutely it is!

But what I mean by him "making stuff up" was him saying stuff like "GR is only a crude approximation of the way molecules in close proximity behave."

As you well know - that's not even wrong. Not even vaguely what GR says. To call it a strawman would be a disservice to straw men. It's simply a gross fabrication, a complete and utter misrepresentation to say that is what GR says, because GR isn't a secret - you go look. Does it say that? No. That's what I was referring to.

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
What I cannot for the life of me understand is how or why you would resist the idea of putting EM and GR theory together into a single cosmology theory.
Resist it? Quite the opposite!

We're all trying to do exactly that, but what you don't get to do is redefine the bits that are empirically well-tested without having an explanation for why your definition is better, and if all you have is "GR should include electrical charge because space-time is charged" you'll forgive us for not leaping up and down at EU/PC being TOE, because to say that you have to redefine space-time in such a manner as your definition of it is completely different to anybody else's....

It's simply not right to say EU-PC is a reconciliation, attempted or complete, to combine GR and electromagnetism - where are the tensors?

...(whatever exactly EU/PC is, which is still quite unclear, it's pretty easy to figure out what six parameter LCDM is but EU/PC theory....I'm baffled - still seems to just be a place holder for "any paper that seems non-mainstream").
  #75  
Unread 28th June 2013, 08:23 PM
Michael's Avatar
Contributor

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Member For 5 Years
 
Join Date: 5th February 2002
Location: Mt. Shasta, California
Posts: 16,743
Blessings: 231,872
My Mood Angelic
Reps: 161,229,080,659,967,392 (power: 161,229,080,659,996)
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Michael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond reputeMichael has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by davidbilby View Post
The penny drops. Michael - can you define space-time for me as you understand it (not as wikipedia understands it)? Serious question. Because that's a large portion of where you're misunderstanding GR.

Because no physicist that I know of - including Alfven or Birkeland, I am sure - is using the definition of space-time that allows it to be charged
Well, clearly you haven't read Birkeland's work, nor Alfven's work either it would seem.

because it's literally like saying "triangles have electric charge".
A triangle made of a conductive material, that's part of a whole 'circuit', might very well have an electric charge david. It just so happens that plasma is an *excellent* conductor.

There are triangular things that have electric charge in the world,
And there are plasma things in the universe that have an electric charge. Really, I'd suggest you start with Birkeland's work and go to Alfven from there.

I am sure, but the shape "triangle" is not something that has electric charge for obvious reasons.
So what if various objects in the universe hold a charge, but not for obvious reasons?

Space - like the triangle - is an abstract concept.
Only until you add matter/energy. Once you do that, "space" graduates and becomes "spacetime" where matter/energy is capable of warping spacetime.

It is not a literal "stuff".
It's composed of large and small bits of literal "mass/energy".

You can draw an example of its geometry,
The 'geometry' as you're calling it is *caused by* (important) the *concentration of mass energy*. It's not curved 'just because'. It's curved *by the mass/energy*. It's various curvatures are *caused by* the location of those large and small bits of mass/energy.

I'm going to head home at the moment, but I'll try to get to anything important that I missed in the next post.

Suffice to say that you and I have slightly different perceptions of what "spacetime" is "caused" by. You seem to to wish to exclude the mass/energy altogether. That's impossible IMO. All you'd have in that instance is a pure vacuum, that is completely devoid of any geometry.
__________________
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man's life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom."
"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self."
"Only a life lived for others is a life worth while."
"When the solution is simple, God is answering."
Albert Einstein
  #76  
Unread 28th June 2013, 09:26 PM
Justatruthseeker's Avatar
Newbie

52 Gender: Male Married Faith: Non-Denominational Party: US-Others Country: United States Member For 1 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 4th June 2013
Location: Tulsa, OK USA
Posts: 3,205
Blessings: 44,914
My Mood Amazed
Reps: 42,980,691,609,080,872 (power: 42,980,691,609,085)
Justatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond repute
Justatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Eventually a TOE may tie gravity and EM fields together, with or without your help. The fact Einstein didn't do it, doesn't mean it cannot ever be done. It simply requires more data, and more data related to particle physics. Justatruthseeker brought up several good points about how we currently use EM fields to separate various subatomic particles. That also suggests an EM field connection at the subatomic realm, just like those collider experiments with electrons and positrons which form into subatomic particles. It's also been recently discovered that neutrons also have a layered "structure", with an outer negative shell, a negative core, and a positive layer in between.
Some might claim that we were once a lot closer to the truth.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...ic_Science.pdf
Some claim conspiracy, I prefer to think of it as just close-mindedness.
Science: To Be, or Not to Be
Some just compare the two theories.
Einstein Was Wrong | Libertarian News
Some claim trajectories can be computed without Relativity.
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid...rbit_ceres.pdf
But personally I rather like SR, it's not E's fault everyone wanted to ride his coattails and took off on tangents. I just think the real relativistic theory is being suppressed.
The Suppressed Electrodynamics Of Ampre-Gauss-Weber

Aurora (astronomy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Auroras result from emissions of photons in the Earth's upper atmosphere, above 80 km (50 mi), from ionized nitrogen atoms regaining an electron, and oxygen and nitrogen atoms returning from an excited state to ground state.
It's the gaining of an electron (imbalance to balance), or the loss of energy from excited state to ground (imbalance to balance), a faster oscillation rate to a slower one at equilibrium, similar to the way clocks work near large energy sources such as the Earth. I say large energy source because it has a large magnetosphere. And only moving electric charges flowing in a circuit create magnetic fields.
Origin of Permanent Magnetism
In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit).
I do somewhat disagree though, there is one major difference not taken into account. At the temperatures of the Earth's core, and the temperatures upon the Sun, no material magnetic field could ever form or continue to exist without a constant flow of electrically charged particles.

Temperature effects on magnets
The Curie Temperature (Tc) is the temperature at which the magnet will be completely demagnetized. Even though it may still be a magnetic material, a material that has the ability to retain a magnetic field when magnetized, it would have completely demagnetized. It is important to note that taking a magnet to Tc will demagnetize the magnet, but depending on the process used, heating and cooling rates, and the environment that the magnet is exposed to during the temperature cycle, heating a magnet to Tc can cause structural or mechanical damage.
There really is no need to pretend further. Granted, we have a long way to go to even begin to realize what energy or voltage is. We are far, far, far away from a theory of everything, despite the hubris of some that believe so.
__________________
"If one closes their eyes they can imagine a universe of infinite possibilities, but until one opens their eyes they will never see the light. - Steven - me

"Every mile you go in the wrong direction is really a two mile error." - Unknown

There are three sides to every story: my side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. - Robert Evans
  #77  
Unread 28th June 2013, 09:48 PM
Newbie

Gender: Male Married Faith: Atheist Member For 2 Years
 
Join Date: 10th October 2012
Posts: 693
Blessings: 21,101
Reps: 12,387,638,400,015,354 (power: 12,387,638,400,018)
davidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond repute
davidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Well, clearly you haven't read Birkeland's work, nor Alfven's work either it would seem.
It's been a while, but Birkeland appears in most undergraduate physics syllabi...I certainly read some of his work. Indubitably though he would have espoused Kant's view of space...(not space-time of course, because that wasn't really a concept at that juncture). He certainly wouldn't have thought that space was a "stuff" made of "stuff", to use the vernacular, and there would be no evidence to think that he would have disagreed particularly with the Newtonian notion that space would exist independent of matter or energy....


Originally Posted by Michael View Post
A triangle made of a conductive material, that's part of a whole 'circuit', might very well have an electric charge david. It just so happens that plasma is an *excellent* conductor.
So are lots of things. But by adding "made of a conductive material" you prove my point....you have to add to the concept the additional property of matter.


Originally Posted by Michael View Post
And there are plasma things in the universe that have an electric charge. Really, I'd suggest you start with Birkeland's work and go to Alfven from there.
And yet none of them "are" space-time. They may exist within space-time - that is they have coordinates within space at a particular time, but they are not space-time and that space-time could exist without them.


Originally Posted by Michael View Post
So what if various objects in the universe hold a charge, but not for obvious reasons?
They'd still be objects, and still have coordinates within space-time.


Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Only until you add matter/energy. Once you do that, "space" graduates and becomes "spacetime"
No, adding time to the three spatial dimensions is what gives rise to the notion of the continuum of space-time.


Originally Posted by Michael View Post
It's composed of large and small bits of literal "mass/energy".
So you espouse the view that where there is no matter or energy there is, in theory, no space-time?



Originally Posted by Michael View Post
The 'geometry' as you're calling it is *caused by* (important) the *concentration of mass energy*.
As I call it and as everybody who's studied GR calls it. It's not "geometry"...it's just geometry. That's exactly what it is. No inverted commas required....

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
It's not curved 'just because'. It's curved *by the mass/energy*.
But it's not caused to exist by mass and energy, which is what you seem to be claiming, and neither does have the properties of mass and energy, like charge....

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
It's various curvatures are *caused by* the location of those large and small bits of mass/energy.
In essence yes, but that's not the point I'm making to you.

Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Suffice to say that you and I have slightly different perceptions of what "spacetime" is "caused" by.
Yeah, and your definition renders GR nonsensical.

You can't say that space-time has properties of mass-energy - like charge - and is "made of" matter. Space-time is simply a coordinates system...an abstract notion of continuum. It is not "made of" electrons, or neutrons, or protons, or quarks, or energy, though all of those things may be considered to have coordinates WITHIN space-time. You also still haven't quite defined what you think space-time is...you've only said so far that it has "charge" but then every time I say...how?...you answer that plasma, or something else with mass and energy properties, has charge, which isn't answering the question......
  #78  
Unread 29th June 2013, 01:53 AM
Justatruthseeker's Avatar
Newbie

52 Gender: Male Married Faith: Non-Denominational Party: US-Others Country: United States Member For 1 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 4th June 2013
Location: Tulsa, OK USA
Posts: 3,205
Blessings: 44,914
My Mood Amazed
Reps: 42,980,691,609,080,872 (power: 42,980,691,609,085)
Justatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond repute
Justatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Michael
As long as you *ignore* the charged particles that actually make up "spacetime"
Originally Posted by davidbilby
The penny drops. Michael - can you define space-time for me as you understand it (not as wikipedia understands it)? Serious question. Because that's a large portion of where you're misunderstanding GR.
Not any better than E could. He was hoping someone would be able to someday though.

Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Wikisource, the free online library
Of course it would be a great advance if we could succeed in comprehending the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field together as one unified conformation. Then for the first time the epoch of theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell would reach a satisfactory conclusion.
What theoretical physics founded by Faraday and Maxwell? The electromagnetic force of Relativity? It would finally reach a satisfactory conclussion as soon as you stop ignoring the electric force and help us unify it.
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the General Theory of Relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an Aether. According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
And we agree. Motion may not be applied to the voltage differential between charged objects. But instead it is those moving bodies that is caused to be set in motion by this potential differential.

A matter that deeply concerned E, his opening statement of great import.

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies - Wikisource, the free online library
It is known that the application of Maxwell's electrodynamics, as ordinarily conceived at the present time, to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which don't seem to be connected with the phenomena. Let us, for example, think of the mutual action between a magnet and a conductor. The observed phenomenon in this case depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, while according to the usual conception, a strict distinction must be made between the cases where the one or the other of the bodies is in motion. If, for example, the magnet moves and the conductor is at rest, then an electric field of certain energy-value is produced in the neighbourhood of the magnet, which excites a current in those parts of the field where a conductor exists. But if the magnet be at rest and the conductor be set in motion, no electric field is produced in the neighbourhood of the magnet, but an electromotive force is produced in the conductor which corresponds to no energy per se; however, this causes – equality of the relative motion in both considered cases is assumed – an electric current of the same magnitude and the same course, as the electric force in the first case.
Not Weber's, Gauss' and Ampere's, but Maxwell's simplification of the relativistic force law of Weber. Maxwell took the relativistic formulas of Weber and simplified them algebraically. E just attempted to put them back as best he could. Relativity is a correction of Maxwell's laws, that oversimplified Weber's Relativistic force law formulas. It is this asymmetry that deeply troubled E, as it was assumed effects must be equal. It is only the conductor's movement that matters. But the electric fields are different. In one case an electric field forms around the magnet, in the other no electric field forms around the magnet, but a force is still produced in the conductor. It is this longitudinal force, that Ampere discovered and Weber codified, from which the electron radius is derived, which was not discovered until 50 years later. But these formulas lie all but forgotten, waiting to be rediscovered and finished.

E wanted nothing more than to unify the electrodynamic force laws and gravity into one unified whole. Stop fighting him.

Originally Posted by davidbilby
What's wrong with anything in a hypothetical universe? What matters then is how that hypothetical universe matches with our observed universe. You hypothesize an as yet unseen wavelength independent scattering method. No such thing is known, so you've technically tried to stuff inelastic scattering into your hypothetical universe....no difference. That's really not a problem, but we are then allowed to test your hypothesis. Hypothesis is where you make stuff up...absolutely it is!

But what I mean by him "making stuff up" was him saying stuff like "GR is only a crude approximation of the way molecules in close proximity behave."

As you well know - that's not even wrong. Not even vaguely what GR says. To call it a strawman would be a disservice to straw men. It's simply a gross fabrication, a complete and utter misrepresentation to say that is what GR says, because GR isn't a secret - you go look. Does it say that? No. That's what I was referring to.
I am making stuff up? E is the one that said Relativity was the electrodynamics of moving bodies. I didn't make up Dark Matter, Neutron Stars, Black Holes and now white holes, parallel universes and all that other hogwash. My theory does not need Fairie Dust, only yours. Mine only needs what we see everywhere around us, electrodynamic moving bodies.

It was a slight misstatement, I apologize. GR is a good approximation of the way matter in close proximity behaves, it just sucks at describing unbound matter in every quadrant of space but the close proximity of the solar system and the center of galaxies. So let me clarify that, is that better? Although crude is still a better word since its application is so limited.
__________________
"If one closes their eyes they can imagine a universe of infinite possibilities, but until one opens their eyes they will never see the light. - Steven - me

"Every mile you go in the wrong direction is really a two mile error." - Unknown

There are three sides to every story: my side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. - Robert Evans

Last edited by Justatruthseeker; 29th June 2013 at 02:27 AM.
  #79  
Unread 29th June 2013, 12:16 PM
Justatruthseeker's Avatar
Newbie

52 Gender: Male Married Faith: Non-Denominational Party: US-Others Country: United States Member For 1 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 4th June 2013
Location: Tulsa, OK USA
Posts: 3,205
Blessings: 44,914
My Mood Amazed
Reps: 42,980,691,609,080,872 (power: 42,980,691,609,085)
Justatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond repute
Justatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond reputeJustatruthseeker has a reputation beyond repute
Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Wikisource, the free online library
How does it come about that alongside of the idea of ponderable matter, which is derived by abstraction from everyday life, the physicists set the idea of the existence of another kind of matter, the ether? The explanation is probably to be sought in those phenomena which have given rise to the theory of action at a distance, and in the properties of light which have led to the undulatory theory.
And this is where the problem arises, the wave theory of light codified by Maxwell.

Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else with the help of small floats, for instance we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics if, in fact, nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.
But space does NOT consist of floats bobbing upon a surface, it consists of objects IMMERSED in the medium, everywhere and in all places surrounded by it. So that no matter in which direction one would look, one sees no movement if no matter is present. One can NEVER detect this movement of aether except as ponderable bodies are caused to undulate in what is interpreted as wavelike motion. If one were to watch an object beneath the surface of this medium undulate without gazing upon this boundary between ponderable media, one would not know a medium was present. Would instead only observe the action at a distance of a underwater rock-slide as it caused the object away to move with no apparent cause.
There is NO boundary space between this aether and another medium, such as the boundary between water and air. It exists and supports even the smallest of objects within it, down to the atom. As all experiments have shown time after time. Even the atom to the best of our observation is almost completely empty space. The quark of the neutron that can accept the passage of the bosun without impact altering its course, clearly mostly empty space. The bosun, is it solid? Or is it too composed of mostly empty space?
Certainly, from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity, the ether hypothesis appears at first to be an empty hypothesis. In the equations of the electromagnetic field there occur, in addition to the densities of the electric charge, only the intensities of the field. The career of electromagnetic processes in vacua appears to be completely determined by these equations, uninfluenced by other physical quantities. The electromagnetic fields appear as ultimate, irreducible realities, and at first it seems superfluous to postulate a homogeneous, isotropic ether-medium, and to envisage electromagnetic fields as states of this medium.
A stationary charge radiates an electric field with no magnetic field. A moving charge radiates both an electric field and a magnetic field, an EMF. So we know movement of charged bodies creates magnetic fields, the movement of the quarks causing the permanent electric dipole moment and magnetic field of the neutron.

Electric dipole moment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In physics, the electric dipole moment is a measure of the separation of positive and negative electrical charges in a system of electric charges, that is, a measure of the charge system's overall polarity. The SI units are Coulomb-meter (C m).
A system, supposedly just 3, but then again an electron is supposedly just a single particle, yet to the best of our ability all we see are what appear to be clouds of particles, wherever we gaze at an atom in any place of the electrons orbit. I ask you again. Just how positive are you that this cloud is nothing but a single particle???
Electron electric dipole moment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The electron electric dipole moment (EDM) de is an intrinsic property of an electron such that the potential energy is linearly related to the strength of the electric field: U=deE. Within the standard model of elementary particle physics, such a dipole is predicted to be non-zero but very small, at most 10−38 ecm, where e stands for the elementary charge. The existence of a non-zero electron electric dipole moment would imply a violation of both parity invariance and time reversal invariance.
An electron having an electric dipole movement which is caused by internal motions in the neutron and proton by quarks, implies electrons have internal motions as well; or perhaps electrons are those quarks that make up protons and neutrons, that you only see as clouds surrounding those protons and neutrons? After all, since protons cannot all be positive charges else those internal quarks would all fly apart. Likewise neither can they be all negative. They come in all flavors, what is called negative, positive and neutral (balanced). Kind of like neutrino flavors if you will, able to change values by the attraction or repulsion of smaller charges.

So E was satisfied in naming the aether Energy, and leaving it at that in the hopes that eventually science would be able to unite the gravitational and electromagnetic phenomenon into one theory. I am just waiting for mainstream to start considering the electric force part of the equation so we can unite them, not continue to ignore it.
__________________
"If one closes their eyes they can imagine a universe of infinite possibilities, but until one opens their eyes they will never see the light. - Steven - me

"Every mile you go in the wrong direction is really a two mile error." - Unknown

There are three sides to every story: my side, your side, and the truth. And no one is lying. - Robert Evans
  #80  
Unread 29th June 2013, 02:35 PM
Newbie

Gender: Male Married Faith: Atheist Member For 2 Years
 
Join Date: 10th October 2012
Posts: 693
Blessings: 21,101
Reps: 12,387,638,400,015,354 (power: 12,387,638,400,018)
davidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond repute
davidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond reputedavidbilby has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by Justatruthseeker View Post
It was a slight misstatement, I apologize. GR is a good approximation of the way matter in close proximity behaves
Approximation? You know nothing about this subject, clearly. There is no way that anybody who does says "GR is a good approximation" and invokes how far apart matter is versed in GR at all.

The central tenet of GR - the irremovable backbone of the idea, of both this and SR - is that there it applies universally, there are no privileged reference frames...

If you want to say that GR breaks down at a particular matter density - not at a scale, but at a density - then you have completely and utterly misunderstood or failed to study the theory in any depth whatsoever.

(If Michael wants to say space-time has charge - and thus redefine space-time into a pseudo he has also just rejected GR - doesn't matter how much he says "no I haven't"...yes, he has. Since we're quoting Einstein, here he is in 1920 - "Space-time does not claim existence in its own right, but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational] field").

EU/PC Theory is not a scalar field theory and cannot explain the scalar fields of GR. Thus it is not even vaguely an attempt to "unify electromagnetism and gravity". It seems to be sweeping GR under the rug...especially if the best you can come up with is "GR breaks down at a particular matter density"....

Do you understand what Einstein was actually trying to do? He was trying to find a scalar field theory which would generalise GR to include electromagnetism....why did he do that first? Simply because gravity and electromagnetism both at that point had an essentially complete field theory that described them; so they had a similar mathematics basis. Thus it seemed like they should be generalizable into an expression of an overarching scalar field theory of which BOTH EM and GR were a particular case. It wouldn't be right to call this "electromagnetism"...neither would it be right to call it "relativity".

However, the simple fact that GR is entirely geometric, and is extremely difficult to quantise, makes it very, very hard indeed to reconcile with electromagnetism which is very, very easy to quantise.

This is where string theory, elements of SUSY and LQG came in - theories of quantum gravity. So far from trying to ignore electricity in space...actually, physics is quite literally obsessed with it. But until we have a quantum theory of gravity, the two are not going to be reconcilable, which is why that's a particularly popular line of research!

Originally Posted by Justatruthseeker View Post
It just sucks at describing unbound matter in every quadrant of space
No, it doesn't. It describes it perfectly in terms of the geometry of how matter - bound or unbound - curves the topology of space and time. The only place GR is not applicable is in quantum mechanics, and we don't yet have a quantum theory of gravity. Yet.

Originally Posted by Justatruthseeker View Post
but the close proximity of the solar system and the center of galaxies. So let me clarify that, is that better? Although crude is still a better word since its application is so limited.
Nope, that's considerably more inaccurate than your previous version, which was simply vague.
Closed Thread


Return to Physical & Life Sciences

Thread Tools
Display Modes


 
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:18 AM.