Relativity

[essentialsaltes]

we have never in our lifetimes observed a particle that was electrically neutral

You fail so hard. The photon is electrically neutral. It is its own antiparticle, and necessarily neutral. (The antiparticle must have opposite charge to the particle. If they are one and the same, the charge must be identically 0.)

It defies the very meaning of E=mc^2.

HOW?

Charge does not even appear in that equation.

You gibber.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Again you fail high school physics. If you accelerate your car to 100 mph, then stop your acceleration (i.e. maintain constant speed), and then aim your car at a wall, you do not hit the wall with zero energy. Kinetic energy (in high school physics) is proportional to the square of the velocity, not acceleration.

Your understanding of energy is not only vague, but wrong.

I think even Michael would agree.

Only on earth <.01% of the universe, what part of my telling you, you can't base the universe on what you observe from less than .01% of it did you not understand? In space when acceleration is stopped, bodies DO NOT suddenly stop, yet one become virtually weightless, where moments ago one had the energy content of whatever it's acceleration provided.

And I beg to differ, it is your understanding of energy that is not only vague, but so wrong you can't even see it. In your small world space is composed of nothing, which is magically bent and expands, because it is time too. Suuuuuure, if you say so.

In my world space is filled with electric and magnetic fields because it is the voltage differential between particles that matter as well, not just whether they are negative or positive. It is this overall voltage differential that causes the net attraction between all particles. Since the Standard Model was just confirmed, what theory do you use to base the atom on?

Why do you think you can't unite them? For 100 years mainstream has attempted to take the electrical force out of the atom, and has failed every time. Now in testing the beloved theory of Supersymetry to confirm it, they instead confirmed the Standard Model.

But of course something has to be wrong with the Standard Model because it doesn't describe dark matter. Or, there is something wrong with dark matter theory, like it is Fairie Dust. GR has no problem describing the solar system, no dark matter needed, so it doesn't describe it either.

And I don't think he will because he doesn't ignore 99% of the universe like you do. He may or may not have theorized voltage as the cause, but I think he will agree that an electrical component is certainly missing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You fail so hard. The photon is electrically neutral. It is its own antiparticle, and necessarily neutral. (The antiparticle must have opposite charge to the particle. If they are one and the same, the charge must be identically 0.)



HOW?

Charge does not even appear in that equation.

You gibber.

And yet the Standard Model, that was just confirmed as being correct.

Neutron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment...Even though the neutron is a neutral particle, the magnetic moment of a neutron is not zero because it is a composite particle containing three charged quarks.

There is no such thing as a magnetic charge or a magnetic monopole, all magnetic forces are sustained only through the movement of electric charges (current).

It is your base misunderstanding of magnetism that leads you to that incorrect belief. If it was neutral it would not interact with the protons and electrons. Keeping the protons from flying apart and the electrons from smashing into the protons. Electrically neutral with a permanent electric and magnetic dipole moment. Yah right, you just go right ahead believing in that Fairie Dust.

Origin of Permanent Magnetism

And by the way, the photon is the complete electric and magnetic fields that we measure quite easily everywhere, it's not my fault non-standard models predict it's neutrality despite the fact that all of light IS the electromagnetic spectrum..

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What you need to do is study up onwhat voltage is. It can if one wants be described in a geometrically curved way to simplify it,

Electrical curriculum: What is Voltage?

But even Maxwell beieved Webers Electrical Relitivitic Law was far superior to his, Gauss, Ampere's and Faraday's. That all of them can be derived from Weber's Electrical Law. That the electron mass ration can be derived from this law and was done so in 1871.

Theory of the Electron: A Theory of Matter from Start - Jaime Keller - Google Books

 

[essentialsaltes]

In space when acceleration is stopped, bodies DO NOT suddenly stop

Of course they don't, and that's why they still have energy. Your earlier statement ("all the extra energy is dissipitated once acceleration is stopped") was utterly wrong.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And yet the Standard Model, that was just confirmed as being correct.

You don't even understand what you're saying. Anyway, you've once again quoted something that contradicts your own idea. "Even though the neutron is a neutral particle." Case closed.

PS the fact that the neutron has a electric dipole moment does not mean that it has a net electric charge. As you yourself pointed out, there are no magnetic monopoles, but obviously every magnet has a magnetic dipole. Having a dipole moment does not imply having a net charge.

it's not my fault non-standard models predict it's [sic] neutrality

No, sorry. Once again you fail. The Standard Model includes a neutral photon. "A photon ... has no electric charge"

 

[essentialsaltes]

For 100 years mainstream has attempted to take the electrical force out of the atom

No, it hasn't. One of the most precisely measured constants in nature is the Rydberg constant, which is involved in our fully quantum theory of electromagnetism and the foundation of atomic spectroscopy. The Rydberg depends on several electrical parameters, including the electron charge and the permittivity of free space.

THE CONCORDANCE BETWEEN THEORY AND EXPERIMENT IS SUPREMELY SUCCESSFUL, ACCURATE TO A FEW PARTS PER TRILLION.

Nobody is trying to get rid of it.

Tip #2 in spotting pseudoscience: persecution complex.

 

[Michael]

No, there's no problem. I just defined what the space part of spacetime is. And it has nothing to do with dark anythings or cosmological whatnots. It's basically the same as in special relativity.

Unfortunately there is still a problem. As far as I can tell you gave me a perfectly correct explanation of SR and GR, and the differences between them. What you failed to acknowledge is that GR is *not* dependent upon what you're calling "space expansion". Your answers don't quite add up, and your definition of "space" sure has the smell of any expanding aether that you're associating with metric distance.

No, no, no! The entities to which you object are all included as parts of the energy-momentum tensor (the right side of Einstein's GR equation). The Einstein tensor (the left side of the equation) depends only on the metric, and the metric has a fixed signature of +++-. 3 space dimensions, 1 time dimension. There's your space and time.

Sorry but GR is not dependent upon the validity of your claim that "space" does expansion tricks. You can't demonstrate that claim, nor can you claim that GR theory *requires* that space does expansion tricks.

The only "hypothesis" that requires "space expansion" is one specific amd otherwise falsified cosmology hypothesis, not GR theory.

I see you have been copying from the YEC songbook.

That's an ironic comparison from my perspective since you're the one peddling a 'creation story' with a creation (of matter) date, not me. As far as I know the universe is infinite and eternal. It might be expanding locally or not.

Your demand to see cosmic expansion inside a room is equivalent to asking for a crocoduck.

That is a complete cop out. Even Hox gene experiments show that not only have microscopic evolutionary process been demonstrated in the lab, but macroscopic ones as well. You're just trying to give yourself a "free pass" on demonstrating your claims. Biologists do nothing of the sort. They work at it till they can demonstrate it.

As I have patiently explained, and as you agree, space and time are interrelated, and we do have controlled experiments demonstrating time dilation redshift. So there is no reason to doubt space expansion redshift.

Yes, there is. GR theory is *not* dependent upon your space expansion claim. Only one specific, and otherwise *falsified* cosmology hypothesis depends upon the validity of that space expansion claim that you whipped out of your back pocket.

I'm fine with your basic descriptions of SR and GR, but I'm still not fine with you claiming that space expands. You simply cannot demonstrate that claim and GR theory is *not* dependent upon the validity of that claim.

No.

Really? Surely you realize that Einstein himself was hoping to merge them all into a single TOE? We certainly cannot leave *out* the EM fields created by moving plasma in a mostly plasma universe. We already know what that leads to, specifically the dark ages of astronomy.

When we smash positrons and electrons together in the lab, it's just a pure coincidence in your opinion that we get subatomic particles? It's just a pure coincidence that neutrons happen to have a negative outer shell that *might* interact with a proton in close enough proximity?

In every other way you seem pretty "reasonable" and quite knowledgeable from my perspective, but you lost points on that answer from my perspective.

It is the fact that GR does *not* include the EM field effects of moving charged mass that *requires* us to include them elsewhere. Since lambda-CDM did not include them, it requires a variety of supernatural claims and constructs to make up the difference.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What you failed to acknowledge is that GR is *not* dependent upon what you're calling "space expansion".

Of course not. Space can contract, too. Or Space can be held fixed through a cosmological constant or exotic matter (but not EM, which is made of and mediated by normal matter). Or you can make up a cockamamie universe like the Gödel metric, which is an exact solution of Einstein's equation, but does not model the universe we live in.

I did not fail to acknowledge your point. Your point is irrelevant to your question. You asked what space was. I told you how to distinguish it from spacetime. The metric as signature +++- whether space expand, contracts, stays the same, or pirouettes like a dancer. Space has the same definition in all of those cases.

That is a complete cop out. Even Hox gene experiments show that not only have microscopic evolutionary process been demonstrated in the lab, but macroscopic ones as well.

Any creationists want to comment?

Biologists have indeed demonstrated many evolutionary processes in the lab, but there just is not enough time to demonstrate 'goo to you' evolution in the lab. Rather, other forms of evidence (fossils, etc.) provide us with the necessary information to come to the conclusion that that kind of macroevolution occurred.

Similarly, time dilation has been measured in the lab. As you admit, time and space are intermingled. So we have no rational reason to forbid spatial expansion. If clocks wiggle, rulers wobble. Other lines of evidence (cosmological redshift) provide further evidence, and of the options above:
A expand
B contract
C stay the same
D rotate

This other evidence picks out spatial expansion as the correct situation.

I'm fine with your basic descriptions of SR and GR, but I'm still not fine with you claiming that space expands.

You can stick your head in the sand if you want; I don't care. But my definition of space did not depend on the expansion. My definition pertains to all forms of GR. So at least you can stop whining about space not being defined.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Really?

Yes, using EM to explain why nucleons stick together in the nucleus is a failure.

It's just a pure coincidence that neutrons happen to have a negative outer shell

Coincidence? I'm not sure how you mean. The Standard Model predicts that the neutron has a tiny electric dipole moment. (Also, this is not a 'negative outer shell'; a neutron with a spherically symmetrical charge distribution would have zero dipole) In fact, it's so small, it hasn't been measured.

Maybe it's fairy dust.
No one has ever seen it in a lab.

What's that? The dipole moment is a prediction of a successful theory that we trust due to multiple other lines of evidence? Exactly so, therefore I do not doubt the neutron has a tiny dipole moment. For the same reason, you should accept space expansion.

that *might* interact with a proton in close enough proximity?

A dipole moment is a vector, so this interaction has a direction. If you have a neutron (one of many in a nucleus) surrounded by protons, some of those protons will be repelled by the neutron. And there's just as much repulsion as attraction. This is not going to hold a nucleus together.

But let's try. Wiki says the current limit is that the neutron dipole moment is < 2.9×10&#8722;26e·cm. e is the charge on the electron 1.6 * 10^&#8722;19 C. And if we convert to meters....

the dipole moment of the neutron is no bigger than about 5 * 10^-47 Cm

Let's try a deuterium nucleus. One proton and one neutron. The proton can snuggle up to the negative end of the neutron and get bound there. Let's measure the binding energy, and we'll make the neutron dipole moment as large as it can possibly be.

Using the dipole potential, the binding energy will be:

kqp/r^2

k = Coulomb constant = 9 * 10^9 Nm^2/C^2
q = charge on the proton = 2 * 10^&#8722;19 C
p = neutron dipole moment = 5 * 10^-47 Cm
r = radius of the proton, roughly 1 * 10^-15 m

The binding energy would be 9 * 10^-26 Nm = 9 * 10^-26 Joules = 6 * 10^-7 electron volts. Less than a millionth of an electron volt.

The actual binding energy of the deuteron is 2 MeV. 2 million electron volts.

Your hypothesis that atomic nuclei are held together by EM is wrong by a factor of a trillion. Time to discard it.

 

[Michael]

Of course not. Space can contract, too.

Another non demonstrabled claim I presume?

Or Space can be held fixed through a cosmological constant

IMO you're a little "loose and wild" with your terms. "Spacetime" can expand as the objects and energy that make up spacetime move away from one another. Spacetime can contract as well, as the objects of spacetime move toward one another. Spacetime can remain reasonably stable, in orbital configurations too, and with the help of some other *known* force of nature, say EM fields, we *might* create a stable universe of matter.

Your term "space" is still undefined at the level of actual physics. The metric that you described is simply a mathematical metric. It's not "space". Unlike the object movement expansion and contraction process we see in the lab, you're proposing *something else entirely*, that GR does *not* depend on. I have no use for such a claim. Why do you? The unsupported claim is used in exactly *one* otherwise falsified cosmology theory.

or exotic matter

Praying for a miracle in 2015 are you? What if they find no new forms of exotic matter than happen to be long lived enough to explain 'dark matter'? Will you just "live on faith' in exotic matter for the rest of your natural life? Is there any time limit on your patience and faith in long lived forms of exotic matter in the absence of any useful lab results?

(but not EM, which is made of and mediated by normal matter).

This is the basic problem in astronomy. You're not willing to include EM field influences of moving charged objects to GR geometry, and you're trying to justify it by any ridiculous means necessary. Charged objects can both repel and attract.

I did not fail to acknowledge your point. Your point is irrelevant to your question. You asked what space was. I told you how to distinguish it from spacetime.

No you didn't. You took *one component* from GR theory, tweaked the term and meaning of the term to suit yourself, and claimed it represents 'space'.

The metric as signature +++- whether space expand, contracts, stays the same, or pirouettes like a dancer. Space has the same definition in all of those cases.

The metric isn't "space", it's a distance metric. You're endowing a distance metric with supernatural powers that never occurs in any lab on Earth, or in this galaxy, and you expect me to believe you that it 'just happens' somewhere out there in 'spacetime' where humans can inconveniently never get to? Come on. I've heard some *whoppers* in my time, but you're taking a mathematical symbol (a metric) and endowing it with metaphysical properties.

Any creationists want to comment?

Biologists have indeed demonstrated many evolutionary processes in the lab, but there just is not enough time to demonstrate 'goo to you' evolution in the lab. Rather, other forms of evidence (fossils, etc.) provide us with the necessary information to come to the conclusion that that kind of macroevolution occurred.

Sure, but microscopic evolution can be demonstrated in the lab. Hox gene experiments show that *significant* physical changes can occur in a single generation depending on the gene that is mutated. As you noted we also have an entire collection of fossil evidence. It's not like there is no *tangible on Earth* evidence to support the claim. You're comparing natural, good empirical oranges to poisonous metaphysical invisible apples.

Similarly, time dilation has been measured in the lab. As you admit, time and space are intermingled. So we have no rational reason to forbid spatial expansion.

We can demonstrate time dilation in experiments on Earth and around Earth. It's not like I have to 'take it on faith' that time is modified by mass. You didn't demonstrate that spatial expansion is modified by mass. You're *assuming* it. The distance between objects can be modified by the movement of mass, but you simply *assumed* a supernatural form of expansion.

If clocks wiggle, rulers wobble.

This is akin to insisting that because electric fields have a source and a sink that magnetic fields must also have them. Sorry, but one claim does *not* follow the other. The clocks can wiggle without rulers wobbling. In fact that's *exactly* how it works in the lab.

You can stick your head in the sand if you want; I don't care. But my definition of space did not depend on the expansion. My definition pertains to all forms of GR. So at least you can stop whining about space not being defined.

You still never *physically* defined it! You pointed at a metric in a math formula and relabeled it something else, and endowed it with a *new* property that GR is *not* dependent upon.

Until I get a *physical* definition of space, your just assuming things about GR theory to suit yourself, things that GR theory doesn't necessarily *assume*, and *definitely doesn't *require*.

You can bury your head in the sand if you want, but GR theory is not now, nor will it ever be dependent upon your *non demonstrated* claim. It works fine without your claim. It works fine to explain expansion contraction and stable configurations without your claim. Your claim is *not* a requirement in GR, it's a *desire* on your part perhaps, but not a demonstrated *physical feature* of GR.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Another non demonstrabled claim I presume?

What? No.

You claim to accept GR. In a GR universe that looks somewhat like ours, the only choices are expansion, contraction, and staying the same.

IMO you're a little "loose and wild" with your terms. "Spacetime" can expand as the objects and energy that make up spacetime move away from one another.

IMO you don't understand GR. What you've described is stuff moving in spacetime. That is not the same as the dynamics of spacetime itself.

Praying for a miracle in 2015 are you?

No, I'm presenting all the possible options. However, your option, EM, does not work, because EM is described by the standard EM stress-energy tensor, and it does not have the exotic properties required to keep a universe stable.

You're not willing to include EM field influences of moving charged objects to GR geometry

I have no problem with that at all. However, it cannot produce a stable universe. Only an expanding or contracting one. Only some type of exotic matter (that I am not praying for... I'm just providing all the possible options) with negative pressure could keep the universe stable.

You took *one component* from GR theory, tweaked the term and meaning of the term to suit yourself, and claimed it represents 'space'.

Look, you allege you have no problem with GR defining spacetime. All I did was take that definition and show how it is made of (surprise surprise) space and time.

It's not like there is no *tangible on Earth* evidence to support the claim.

Time dilation is tangible evidence on earth. Time and space are linked, as you said. If you accept GR, then you must accept that "if clocks wiggle, then rulers wobble".

Sorry, but one claim does *not* follow the other. The clocks can wiggle without rulers wobbling.

It does follow. Different observers see space and time converted into each other. Different observers do not see charges turning into magnetic monopoles.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course they don't, and that's why they still have energy. Your earlier statement ("all the extra energy is dissipitated once acceleration is stopped") was utterly wrong.

Then what happened to all that energy that the object held while under acceleration? What happened to all that energy that made you weight the equivalent of twice your noral weight, then no weight at all, instantly, not after a period of time. Try again.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You don't even understand what you're saying. Anyway, you've once again quoted something that contradicts your own idea. "Even though the neutron is a neutral particle." Case closed.

PS the fact that the neutron has a electric dipole moment does not mean that it has a net electric charge. As you yourself pointed out, there are no magnetic monopoles, but obviously every magnet has a magnetic dipole. Having a dipole moment does not imply having a net charge.



No, sorry. Once again you fail. The Standard Model includes a neutral photon. "A photon ... has no electric charge"

Case is not closed, a neutral particle can not have a permanent electric and magnetic dipole moment. You know better than that. Simply because some want to believe that and write it in their books is not my fault. They also say GR is correct, yet it needs Fairie Dust to make it work outside of the solar system, so I'd say it ain't all that its stacked up to be.

Neutral does not mean NO electric or magnetic force acting on it or from it to other particles. It simply means that the electric and magnetic fields are *balanced*. They are equal in intensity and act equally on all other particles. It has neither an excess of negative or positive charge, but is balanced. Yet these negative and positive charges act equally on all other nearby charges. It does not just sit there like an electrically inert object as mainstream would have you believe.

If you were for evolution and Michael was for creation, and I took a neutral stance, this only means I would not favor one side over the other, but could affect either side by presenting evidence for or against each side equally. Mediating the exchange, helping to keep the entire system in balance.

But then I claim a Neutron is only neutral while bound to a proton AND an electron. When unbound they spontaneously decay in about 14 minutes. When two or more lone neutrons are put together they immediately fly apart, showing they ain't really neutral at all in your definition of the word.

So we have three aspects of charge now? Positive repels positive, negative repels negative, and neutral repels neutral? Yet add neutrons and protons DON'T fly apart and electrons DONT smash into protons. So no charge at all does this? Are you really asking me to believe that?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, it hasn't. One of the most precisely measured constants in nature is the Rydberg constant, which is involved in our fully quantum theory of electromagnetism and the foundation of atomic spectroscopy. The Rydberg depends on several electrical parameters, including the electron charge and the permittivity of free space.

THE CONCORDANCE BETWEEN THEORY AND EXPERIMENT IS SUPREMELY SUCCESSFUL, ACCURATE TO A FEW PARTS PER TRILLION.

Nobody is trying to get rid of it.

Tip #2 in spotting pseudoscience: persecution complex.

Which you must feel persecuted to need to resort to constant ad hominem remarks.

It is only successful in less than 1% of the universe though. You and I both know quite well GR does not need one tiny bit of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, or expanding space to describe the solar system and near Sun environs. Where all tests have been conducted, and all observations match. But step up the scale to Galactic, and suddenly this math is no longer appropriate. One must then postulate additional undetectable entities to make the math work, no less than 6. And trying to add more.

Why? we already know what happens to a neutral neutron that is unbound. This leaves positive or negative ions and electrons. Are you sure you understand how neutrons are even formed or what they are? It seems they keep protons from flying apart and electrons from crashing into the proton. Seems it both attracts and repells all at the same time.

Seems to me it has whatever charge it needs to have to keep matter balanced, yet can't exist without both protons and electrons. Sort of like the DNA / RNA / Protein conundrum.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Then what happened to all that energy that the object held while under acceleration?

Your question doesn't make any sense. As I already instructed you, energy of motion (i.e. kinetic energy) depends on the velocity of the object, not the acceleration.

An object at rest has not energy.

As it acclerates, it gains energy. At each moment, its energy is proportional to the square of the velocity.

When the acceleration stops, the velocity remains constant, and so does the energy.

Case is not closed, a neutral particle can not have a permanent electric and magnetic dipole moment.

Absurdly wrong. The prototypical dipole is two equal but opposite charges (q and -q) separated by a distance. The net charge (q + -q) is exactly zero. And yet it is a dipole.

Neutral does not mean NO electric or magnetic force acting on it or from it to other particles. It simply means that the electric and magnetic fields are *balanced*.

Wrong again! Neutral means no net electric charge.

It has neither an excess of negative or positive charge

There, that's correct. But it is not the same as what you said above.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your question doesn't make any sense. As I already instructed you, energy of motion (i.e. kinetic energy) depends on the velocity of the object, not the acceleration.

An object at rest has not energy.

Mainstream seems to disagree with you.

[FONT=&quot]

Many contemporrary authors such as Taylor and Wheeler avoid using the concept of relativistic mass altogether:

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"The concept of "relativistic mass" is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of spacetime itself."[/FONT]

It is the voltage differential of space that causes increased energy, nothing in the original objects internal structure changes one single bit. It does not gain additional protons or electrons and actual physical mass. There is no difference in the mass of an abject with 0 velocity and one with the velocity of 1/2 of c. It is only under acceleration, or in relation to an energy source of another mass that causes internal changes in the property of matter.
Rest Mass

As it acclerates, it gains energy. At each moment, its energy is proportional to the square of the velocity.

When the acceleration stops, the velocity remains constant, and so does the energy.

No, the internal structure of an object never changes due to velocity alone. You are confusing velocity with acceleration. Velocity is a measure of speed and direction, not acceleration.

Your biggest mistake was E's biggest mistake as well. If A and B are one light year apart to two stationary observers and then one accelerates to 1/2 of c, his ruler has shrunk and A and B are no longer 1 light year apart according to the moving person. It is greater than one light year as his ruler no longer measures the same distance. But because his clock has slowed as well it still takes the same amount of lapsed time to cover this additional distance as it would to travel one light year. The moving observer appears to travel a larger distance in the same amount of time. Why do you keep A and B one light year apart if the moving observers ruler has shrunk? The actual distance has not changed which the stationary observer verifies.

It is the entire thought experiment that is based on incorrect assumptions that a shorter ruler will measure the same distance as a longer ruler. A flawed thought process.



There is a big difference between no charge, and balanced charges. That positive charge in a neutron reacts to both the positive and negative charges of electrons and protons, as does the negative charge in the neutron.

You can't even keep your theories consistent. Supersymetry (which was just disproved btw), demands that "Dark matter particles must be electrically neutral; otherwise they would scatter light and thus not be "dark". They must also almost certainly be non-colored ." Yet the neutron consists of charged quarks and the color charge force. They are therefore NOT "dark" and certainly not electrically neutral as you define it. Balanced yes, electrically neutral, no.

That is what dark matter is, electrically neutral Fairie Dust remember. It neither emits nor reacts to the electromagnetic force. That's why it is called "dark." Are you saying a neutron is now a dark matter particle that it must be electrically neutral? Are you sure you want to go there?

But mainstream is now even trying to twist what dark matter is so they can explain the electromagnetic forces they observe everywhere.

New, simple theory may explain mysterious dark matter

It is ridiculous the state modern mainstream astronomical science has fallen into. All the while ignoring plasma, 99% of the universe and the electrical force within it.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Mainstream seems to disagree with you.

Yet again, you quote an authority that disagrees with you.

"increase of energy of an object with velocity"
"the increase of energy with velocity"

The mainstream agrees with me, and you are just flat out wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yet again, you quote an authority that disagrees with you.

"increase of energy of an object with velocity"
"the increase of energy with velocity"

The mainstream agrees with me, and you are just flat out wrong.

No, acceleration increases energy. You just said in a post above that velocity kept the same energy when thrust was cut, not increased it. Make up your mind.

Velocity itself is nothing but a measurement of speed and direction. It takes acceleration to increase speed and energy. It takes an electric field to increase a particles speed or decrease it, and a magnetic field to alter its direction.

This is why the solar wind continues to accelerates out past Jupiter, then stops suddenly at the heliopause. Not due to gravity, but to the electric field of the Sun and the Double Layer seperating the local plasma (solar environment) from the Interstellar Plasma environment.

 

[essentialsaltes]

No, acceleration increases energy.

No, acceleration sometimes increases energy. Accelerating from a stand still would be an example of this.
Sometimes, it decreases energy. When you apply the brakes in your moving car, your acceleration decreases your kinetic energy.
Sometimes, acceleration keeps energy constant. In a perfectly circular orbit, a satellite is accelerating, but its energy remains constant.

Kinetic energy depends directly on the velocity. This is what I, and your own sources, maintain. You are in the wrong.

It takes an electric field to increase a particles speed or decrease it, and a magnetic field to alter its direction.

Are you saying that an electric field cannot alter the direction of a particle? Sadly wrong. Millions of CRT televisions use electric fields to change the direction of charged particles. Heck, you can use the static electricity in a plastic comb to alter the direction of your faucet water.