electromass-discussion

Electromass
posted at 11/8/2008 8:26 PM EST on Space.com
Moved from the Ask The Astronomer forum

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 I believe the same rules apply at all scales, and it is best understood by thinking in spherical coordinates. Those rules are the forces of separated charge and the attraction of separated mass, and especially, the turning points associated with their combination. These two simple properties that exist most readily in atoms here on earth, can be used to explain all of the phenomenon in space without creating new properties of matter or new laws of physics.

-KickLaBuka

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553 Replying to:
I believe the same rules apply at all scales, and it is best understood by thinking in spherical coordinates. Those rules are the forces of separated charge and the rules of separated mass. They can be used to explain all of the phenomenon in space without creating new properties of matter or new laws of physics.
Posted by KickLaBuka

I don’t believe that is correct. While electromagnetic forces are the strongest over small distances, they are dwarfed at kilometer scale and obove by gravity, and by the strong and weak force at atomic scale distances. That is what all scientific evidence indicates.
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
I don’t believe that is correct. While electromagnetic forces are the strongest over small distances, they are dwarfed at kilometer scale and obove by gravity, and by the strong and weak force at atomic scale distances. That is what all scientific evidence indicates.
Posted by MeteorWayne

This is where I stray from the mainstream. I believe the fast orbit of the electrons are pressing the nucleus together, so separating the nucleus requires so much energy. At large scales (like a galaxy), there is a major flow of electrons through the center, which holds the stars from falling away.

-KickLaBuka

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
This is where I stray from the mainstream. I believe the fast orbit of the electrons are pressing the nucleus together, so separating the nucleus requires so much energy. At large scales (like a galaxy), there is a major flow of electrons through the center, which holds the stars from falling away.
Posted by KickLaBuka
By what mechanism can an orbit press anything? Please explain the mechanism by which you believe that negatively charged electrons are pressing on positively charged protons and neutral neutrons to confine them to the rather small nucleus of an atom.
Also explain what evidence you have that there is any significant flow of electrons through the center of galaxies and how such a current, should it exist, can exert a force on stars. Please explaiin this in the context of Maxwell’s equations and classical electrodynamics.

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
By what mechanism can an orbit press anything? Please explain the mechanism by which you believe that negatively charged electrons are pressing on positively charged protons and neutral neutrons to confine them to the rather small nucleus of an atom.Also explain what evidence you have that there is any significant flow of electrons through the center of galaxies and how such a current, should it exist, can exert a force on stars. Please explaiin this in the context of Maxwell’s equations and classical electrodynamics.
Posted by DrRocket

Say the proton and neutron are next to each other. When the electron is on the side of the proton, it is pulling the nucleus towards it, and when the electron is on the side of the neutron, it is pulling the proton against the neutron. This creates a vibration that is seen in emission.
The sun requires electrons to complete the nuclear reactions necessary for the heat and luminosity. Since it outpours protons, electrons are naturally attracted to the sun, which cause it to spin. That spin makes easier paths at the poles, specifically the one dictated by the right hand rule. In the case of OUR sun, the south pole is the receiver.
The easiest way to explain the way this mechanism repeats through galaxies is to compare two stars next to each other, both spinning and accepting electrons at the south poles. The electrons are headed that way anyway because of the stars both being positive charges, but get directed either at their poles or between them. Since the stars are spinning, the magnetic fields depart the north pole and return at the south. This is a vector force, and between the two stars, it is a force downwards. That creates a natural pathway for electron flow, which creates a magnetic cylindar locking the stars together.
Nothing supermassive or supernatural about it.
-KickLaBuka

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
Say the proton and neutron are next to each other. When the electron is on the side of the proton, it is pulling the nucleus towards it, and when the electron is on the side of the neutron, it is pulling the proton against the neutron. This creates a vibration that is seen in emission.
The electron would not pull on the nucleus but only on the proton, since the neutron is neutral. So you need some other force acting between the proton and the neutron. You have it, in the form of the strong force. What is the source of the “emission” that you quote? And what is emitted? And if something is emitted, what happens to the nucleus to conserve matter/energy?
Replying to:
The sun requires electrons to complete the nuclear reactions necessary for the heat and luminosity. Since it outpours protons, electrons are naturally attracted to the sun, which cause it to spin.
Why do you think that electrons are required for the nuclear reactions? What is the role of those electrons? What is the source of the electrons? And why do you think those electrons cause the sun to spin? What evidence do you have that the sun outpours protons? If it did would not the sun very soon have an enormous negative charge? Would not that net negative charge tear it apart? And if the sun “outpours” protons, then it would gain a huge negative charge and would repel any “incoming” electrons.
Replying to:
That spin makes easier paths at the poles, specifically the one dictated by the right hand rule. In the case of OUR sun, the south pole is the receiver.
What does “makes easier paths at the poles” mean. The south pole is the receiver of what? Where does the what come from? If the what is a bunch of electrons, then that flow would constitute a large electric current, and such a current would create a large magnetic field. What evidence do you have for the existence of the resultant magnetic field? If your current is anything like that postulated by Mozina, then the resulting field would be something like 57 million times what is actually observed at the surface of the Earth.
Replying to:
The easiest way to explain the way this mechanism repeats through galaxies is to compare two stars next to each other, both spinning and accepting electrons at the south poles. The electrons are headed that way anyway because of the stars both being positive charges, but get directed either at their poles or between them. Since the stars are spinning, the magnetic fields depart the north pole and return at the south. This is a vector force, and between the two stars, it is a force downwards. That creates a natural pathway for electron flow, which creates a magnetic cylindar locking the stars together.Nothing supermassive or supernatural about it.
Posted by KickLaBuka
Again, the forces that result from a significant accumulation of positive charge are enormous. If they were to exist why don’t they tear the stars apart? What is the source of the inflowing electrons? A bunch of electrons, all negatively charged, repel each other and dissipate very quickly, so how could such a current exist? Where would all those electrons come from ? If the stars were both significantly positively charged there would be an enormous repulsive force between them.
*Moderator*

Saiph
First post: 7/12/2004
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 3118 DrRocket: Your [qoute] Tags need to be in all caps, [QUOT] (purposefully misspelled) it’s odd, but thats the way it works here 🙂

——————–SaiphMOD@gmail.com ——————-
“This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes “bing” when there’s stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I’ve learned to stay away from hens: It’s not pretty when they blow” — The Tenth Doctor, “Blink”

vogon13
First post: 1/13/2005
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 18095
What is the delay in getting this over to The Unexplained ???

OH MY GOD !!! There is a BIBLE VERSE referenced in the ‘Let us pray’ thread !! The sky is falling !!!!!!!!!

*Moderator*

Saiph
First post: 7/12/2004
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 3118 Good point vog…for some reason it hadn’t crossed my mind. Thread shall be moved!

——————–SaiphMOD@gmail.com ——————-
“This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes “bing” when there’s stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I’ve learned to stay away from hens: It’s not pretty when they blow” — The Tenth Doctor, “Blink”

emperor_of_localgroup
First post: 2/5/2005
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 477
Replying to:

Posted by KickLaBuka
People may laugh at KickLaBuka, people may argue about electromagnetic forces and gravitational forces, may be KickLaBuka’s explanations are not right, but close structural similarities between an atom and a solar system, even a galaxy have always puzzled bright minds. In the back of their minds there have been a nagging thought, could the roots of all structures be the same? [Reminds me how fractals are created].
Now comes this news. Our universe may itself be revolving around something. Our universe may not be an isolated case.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081105-dark-flow.html
I didn’t want to start a new thread.

Earth is Boring

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553 Replying to:
People may laugh at KickLaBuka, people may argue about electromagnetic forces and gravitational forces, may be KickLaBuka’s explanations are not right, but close structural similarities between an atom and a solar system, even a galaxy have always puzzled bright minds. In the back of their minds there have been a nagging thought, could the roots of all structures be the same? [Reminds me how fractals are created].Now comes this news. Our universe may itself be revolving around something. Our universe may not be an isolated case.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081105-dark-flow.htmlI didn’t want to start a new thread.
Posted by emperor_of_localgroup

In reality, there are almost no simliarities between an atom and the solar system.
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

baulten
First post: 2/17/2008
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 281
Replying to:
In reality, there are almost no simliarities between an atom and the solar system.
Posted by MeteorWayne
Yeah… this. The only similarity is that there is a big thing in the middle and some small things around it. The behavior of both are insanely different.

Daymo
First post: 11/9/2008
Last post: 11/16/2008
Total posts: 6
Replying to:
Yeah… this. The only similarity is that there is a big thing in the middle and some small things around it. The behavior of both are insanely different.
Posted by baulten
The model of the atom was created in the late 1800s and was based on the Solar System. It was never intended as a description of reality. If John Dalton (I think that’s who it was) was actually correct it would make him the luckiest, or most intuitive person in the history of mankind. The fact that Quantum physics seems so out of step with the rest of what we think we know means that somewhere along the line we have missed the point, and I’m pretty sure it’s the atomic model that’s wrong.
Cheers!

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154

Replying to:
The electron would not pull on the nucleus but only on the proton, since the neutron is neutral. So you need some other force acting between the proton and the neutron. You have it, in the form of the strong force. What is the source of the “emission” that you quote? And what is emitted? And if something is emitted, what happens to the nucleus to conserve matter/energy?
The neutron get’s in the way between the proton and electron, so it is squeezed. You do understand that every element is emitting right? You do understand that thus far nobody has explained why; in fact, everything inside the valence electron shell is ignored in chemistry. Quantum mechanics is a tool used to try… Electromass might have done it.Replying to:
Why do you think that electrons are required for the nuclear reactions? What is the role of those electrons?
One of the reactions is 4H+ + 2e-  4He+ +2v + 27MeV It’s taken from one of Oliver Manuel’s reports in 2002.Replying to:
What is the source of the electrons? And why do you think those electrons cause the sun to spin?
I don’t think they will cause the sun to spin. That’s electromagnetic theory. A flow of current towards a sphere will cause it to spin. Right hand rule.Replying to:
What evidence do you have that the sun outpours protons?
Well, astronomers thought it was a big ball of hydrogen, because they saw all of this outpouring. Oliver Manuel captured it as 3×10^43 H+ ions per year. Of course, the mainstream astronomy was wrong in assuming it was a big ball of hydrogen because hydrogen is terribly unstable and wants nothing to do with itself if possible. Hence, the outpouring and acceleration of it as it leaves the sun.Replying to:
If it did would not the sun very soon have an enormous negative charge? Would not that net negative charge tear it apart? And if the sun “outpours” protons, then it would gain a huge negative charge and would repel any “incoming” electrons.
I hope the machine never stops, but it is inevitable. It just won’t happen like we were taught in high school.Replying to:
What does “makes easier paths at the poles” mean. The south pole is the receiver of what? Where does the what come from? If the what is a bunch of electrons, then that flow would constitute a large electric current, and such a current would create a large magnetic field. What evidence do you have for the existence of the resultant magnetic field?
When the sun is spinning, it is a charge in motion. At the equator, that charge is moving faster than the poles, so the field is stronger. At the poles, the field is at its weakest, so it makes the most sense for the necessary electrons to receive there. Yes, that large flow would constitute an electric current and is creating a magnetic field. It’s actually continuing the sun to spin via the right hand rule. That’s how electric and magnetic fields work together.Replying to:
Again, the forces that result from a significant accumulation of positive charge are enormous. If they were to exist why don’t they tear the stars apart? If the stars were both significantly positively charged there would be an enormous repulsive force between them.
This is why you don’t see many stars too close to each other, but if you do, they are highly volatile. A good average is 0.25 light years, I think. I don’t have a reference to that; just read it somewhere. So the stars like to get away from each other. They are only held by the perpendicular flow of electrons between them, which creates a cylindrical magnetic field that binds them, and even rotates them with respect to each other. Such is the case with the double helix nebulae. It’s no surprise that it is found at the center of the galaxy, where electron flow is thrown like series of baseballs at a batting range.Replying to:
What is the source of the inflowing electrons? A bunch of electrons, all negatively charged, repel each other and dissipate very quickly, so how could such a current exist?
You have to understand from the outside, what is observed is a positive point charge. Electrons are naturally attracted to it and they migrate towards it by jumping between the various elements in the plasma that have become stable. Think of it like a naturally occurring filament, or “string” that they flow through. Once they get near a galaxy, they choose to go through the center (between the stars), or they choose to go directly towards the center of a star at its pole. Think of a star like a balloon. But superglue the knot to the top inside the balloon. The star we see is the knot at the center, and the rest of the balloon constitutes the magnetic field protecting it. We call that the heliopause. If there were several balloons pressed together, from the outside, you would see a dip at the center of each, as well as a sphincter at the center of all. Those are the paths of the electrons. Replying to:
Where would all the electrons come from?
All that has to exist for electromass to work is an initial separation of charge and mass. Stars and galaxies would form themselves.
-KickLaBuka
*Moderator*

Saiph
First post: 7/12/2004
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 3118 I’ve not much time, but I’m going to put in my usual 2 cents on Dr. Manuel: Be very skeptical of everything he has to say. I’ve talked with the man myself, I’ve attended his paper presentations, I’ve seen him and practicing professional astronomers debate on the subjects…
And his viewpoint is very, very suspect.

also…hydrogen is not unstable.

I’ll check back later.

——————–SaiphMOD@gmail.com ——————-
“This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes “bing” when there’s stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I’ve learned to stay away from hens: It’s not pretty when they blow” — The Tenth Doctor, “Blink”

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
Yeah… this. The only similarity is that there is a big thing in the middle and some small things around it. The behavior of both are insanely different.
Posted by baulten

Quite. And only an insane person would claim that the same two laws apply from zero to infinity. Hi.
-KickLaBuka

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553
Replying to:
Quite. And only an insane person would claim that the same two laws apply from zero to infinity. Hi.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Hmmm, this is what you said…
“I believe the same rules apply at all scales”
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
also…hydrogen is not unstable. I’ll check back later.
Posted by Saiph

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-367119.html

-KickLaBuka

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553
Replying to:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1B1-367119.html
Posted by KickLaBuka

And what is the point of your link? That has nothing whatsoever to do with instability of the hydrogen atom.
The Hindenburg (If the hydrogen is even the cause, a matter of some dispute) has to do with the exothermic reaction when hydrogen combined with oxygen. That is completely unrelated to any issues of the stability of the hydrogen atom itself. If you have the two confused, your credibility will take a severe hit. That’s high school physics….
Beware, There be Dragons Here…..
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function
*Moderator*

Saiph
First post: 7/12/2004
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 3118 Yep, that only reminds me that Hydrogen is…well, highly combustible in the presence of Oxygen.
If Hydrogen is unstable, then all elements are highly unstable, as Hydrogen is merely a single proton (unless you have an isotope).

——————–SaiphMOD@gmail.com ——————-
“This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes “bing” when there’s stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I’ve learned to stay away from hens: It’s not pretty when they blow” — The Tenth Doctor, “Blink”

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
Yep, that only reminds me that Hydrogen is…well, highly combustible in the presence of Oxygen.If Hydrogen is unstable, then all elements are highly unstable, as Hydrogen is merely a single proton (unless you have an isotope).
Posted by Saiph
The hydrogen atom is a proton and an electron, and that combination leaves it “more” stable and very combustable. On the other hand, Protons are positive point charges that want nothing to do with each other, unless they are bound together by electrons. In the case of our sun, H+ is escaping and accelerating because without being bound, protons are quite unstable.
And my credibility was discarded among you friends a long time ago, back when I said black holes didn’t have to be supermassive.
-KickLaBuka

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553 Replying to:
The hydrogen atom is a proton and an electron, and that combination leaves it “more” stable and very combustable. On the other hand, Protons are positive point charges that want nothing to do with each other, unless they are bound together by electrons. In the case of our sun, H+ is escaping and accelerating because without being bound, protons are quite unstable.And my credibility was discarded among you friends a long time ago, back when I said black holes didn’t have to be supermassive.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Since hydrogen only has one proton, I don’t understand the point you are trying to make.
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
The neutron get’s in the way between the proton and electron, so it is squeezed. You do understand that every element is emitting right? You do understand that thus far nobody has explained why; in fact, everything inside the valence electron shell is ignored in chemistry. Quantum mechanics is a tool used to try…
Every element is emitting what ? Sure, things inside the valence shell are ignored in chemistry. That is pretty much what chemistry is about. If you get inside the valence shell you are dealing with nuclear physics. But nuclear physicists don’t ignor the nucleus. It is really just a definition of disciplines and a division of labor among scientists. What is your point?
Replying to:
Electromass might have done it.One of the reactions is 4H+ + 2e- à 4He+ +2v + 27MeV It’s taken from one of Oliver Manuel’s reports in 2002.
Oliver Manuel is not a good source. He is in fact IMO a nut. With lots of other problems. http://themissouriminer.com/content/view/14/49/

Replying to:
I don’t think they will cause the sun to spin. That’s electromagnetic theory. A flow of current towards a sphere will cause it to spin. Right hand rule.
The right hand rule doesn’t cause anything. I think what you are talking about is either the Lorentz Force or magnetic induction. But it is not a flow of current towards a sphere that results in the force. First you need a charged sphere or a conducting sphere. Second you need a current flow PAST the sphere and if you are relying on magnetic effects you need the current to vary in time. If the current flows directly through the center of the sphere there will be no net torque. For the magnetic induction case I think that what you are talking about is basically the principle behind an induction motor. There is nothing magic here. If you are relying on something other than magnetic effects you need the sphere to have a net charge, or else the Lorentz force will have no net effect and be balanced by the forces on negative and positive charges.

Replying to:
Well, astronomers thought it was a big ball of hydrogen, because they saw all of this outpouring. Oliver Manuel captured it as 3×10^43 H+ ions per year. Of course, the mainstream astronomy was wrong in assuming it was a big ball of hydrogen because hydrogen is terribly unstable and wants nothing to do with itself if possible. Hence, the outpouring and acceleration of it as it leaves the sun.
What do you mean hydrogen is unstable ? Hydrogen is quite stable, though it is quite reactive and burns readily in the presence of an oxidizer. It also can undergo fusion if it is sufficiently hot that thermal energy overcomes the coulomb repulsion between its nucleii.
Replying to:
I hope the machine never stops, but it is inevitable. It just won’t happen like we were taught in high school.When the sun is spinning, it is a charge in motion. At the equator, that charge is moving faster than the poles, so the field is stronger. At the poles, the field is at its weakest, so it makes the most sense for the necessary electrons to receive there.
What makes you think the sun is charged? It is ionized, yes, but on the whole it is charge neutral. Motion of positive and negative charges in balalnce does not constitute an electric current. When you talk about “the field” I assume that you are talking about a magnetic field, though you do not so state. The effect of a magnetic field on electrons is dependent on the field strength and the velocity of the electrons (Lorentz force), and acts perpendicular to both the field and the velocity vector of the electrons. So it may make some sense that incoming electrons would be more easily received at the poles, if the field were as you described and more importantly if there were incoming electrons. But what is the source for these electrons ? And if the sun is soaking up a lot of electrons why doesn’t the resulting large static charge simply tear the sun apart ?

Replying to:
Yes, that large flow would constitute an electric current and is creating a magnetic field. It’s actually continuing the sun to spin via the right hand rule. That’s how electric and magnetic fields work together.This is why you don’t see many stars too close to each other, but if you do, they are highly volatile.
Double stars are quite common. Very common. Extremely common. What possible effect of magnetic fields do you think keeps stars apart. Stars are essentially charge neutral, so what effect do think there is from the electric field ?
Replying to:
A good average is 0.25 light years, I think. I don’t have a reference to that; just read it somewhere. So the stars like to get away from each other. They are only held by the perpendicular flow of electrons between them, which creates a cylindrical magnetic field that binds them, and even rotates them with respect to each other.
What makes you think that there are electrons flowing between stars ? Do you have any evidence ? I refer you to the calculation that I did in response to Mozina’s assertion that the primary source of power for the sun is an external current. It would create a magnetic field at the surface of the Earth on the order of 57,000,000 times what is actually observed.
Replying to:
Such is the case with the double helix nebulae. It’s no surprise that it is found at the center of the galaxy, where electron flow is thrown like series of baseballs at a batting range. You have to understand from the outside, what is observed is a positive point charge. Electrons are naturally attracted to it and they migrate towards it by jumping between the various elements in the plasma that have become stable. Think of it like a naturally occurring filament, or “string” that they flow through. Once they get near a galaxy, they choose to go through the center (between the stars), or they choose to go directly towards the center of a star at its pole. Think of a star like a balloon. But superglue the knot to the top inside the balloon. The star we see is the knot at the center, and the rest of the balloon constitutes the magnetic field protecting it. We call that the heliopause. If there were several balloons pressed together, from the outside, you would see a dip at the center of each, as well as a sphincter at the center of all. Those are the paths of the electrons. All that has to exist for electromass to work is an initial separation of charge and mass. Stars and galaxies would form themselves.
Posted by KickLaBuka
This is pure fantasy. I don’t even know where to begin to discuss this. There is no physics involved in your description.

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
I’ve not much time, but I’m going to put in my usual 2 cents on Dr. Manuel: Be very skeptical of everything he has to say. I’ve talked with the man myself, I’ve attended his paper presentations, I’ve seen him and practicing professional astronomers debate on the subjects…And his viewpoint is very, very suspect. also…hydrogen is not unstable. I’ll check back later.
Posted by Saiph
Hydrogen (the proton nucleus) might be unstable (no proof but some speculation). If you consider a half life of 10^32 years to be evidence of instability.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jcv/imb/imb.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/particles/proton.html

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
Hydrogen (the proton nucleus) might be unstable (no proof but some speculation). If you consider a half life of 10^32 years to be evidence of instability
Posted by DrRocket

I mean unstable as, unhappy whereever it goes, whenever it’s not bound, not unstable as in radioactive decay.
let me get absolutely clear. proton = H+ = Hydrogen ion. Hydrogen = H+ + e- = 1H (neutral)

-KickLaBuka

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
I mean unstable as, unhappy whereever it goes, whenever it’s not bound, not unstable as in radioactive decay.let me get absolutely clear. proton = H+ = positron. Hydrogen = H+ + e- = 1H (neutral)
Posted by KickLaBuka
A proton is NOT a positron. The positron is the anti-particle to the electron. It has positive charge and mass equal to an electron. If it meets an electron they annihilate one another.
What in the world is an unhappy hyrdogen atom ?
This may be absolutely clear to you. It makes no sense whatever to me. I have no idea what a sad hydrogen atom is, or what it might do to get happy. It is most commonly found as a hydrogen molecule, H2, and it is quite stable in that form. In the sun it is found as an ion, separated from the electron due to temperature.

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
If you are relying on something other than magnetic effects you need the sphere to have a net charge.
Current flowing through a wire causes a magnetic field in loops around it, designated by the right hand rule. A current flowing into a charged sphere will cause that charged sphere to spin. What does the standard model suggest is the cause for the sun to spin, because it is?
Replying to:
What makes you think the sun is charged?
It is outpouring positively charged ions. So negative ions want to get there.Replying to:
what is the source for these electrons ?And if the sun is soaking up a lot of electrons why doesn’t the resulting large static charge simply tear the sun apart ?
It’s soaking these electrons for the necessary nuclear reactions. Helium is a wonderful byproduct with two of those electrons tied up nicely. What is the standard nuclear fusion reaction to create H+ and He (neutral)?
Replying to:
What makes you think that there are electrons flowing between stars ? Do you have any evidence ?
Ahh, I figured that would slip you up. It’s flowing perpendicular to the line between the stars, on the same plane as their axis of rotation. It’s still “between” them, just not how you pictured.Replying to:
I refer you to the calculation that I did in response to Mozina’s assertion that the primary source of power for the sun is an external current. It would create a magnetic field at the surface of the Earth on the order of 57,000,000 times what is actually observed.
I did not claim that the source of the power was external current. The heat and luminosity remain mostly due to nuclear fusion on the surface. But that fusion requires electrons as part of the mix. It’s like baking a cake with no water. You NEED electrons. The interior of the sun is a pretty deep topic, but I am very interested in it. It’s a little more deep than the basics of electromass.Replying to:
This is pure fantasy. I don’t even know where to begin to discuss this. There is no physics involved in your description.
Think about it for a while. I’d love to draw a picture for you but I’ll have to resort on my lingual skills. BTW, I like it when people who talk about supermassive black holes and being able to determine events fourteen billion years ago call anything to the contrary “fantasy.”
-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
A proton is NOT a positron. The positron is the anti-particle to the electron. It has positive charge and mass equal to an electron. If it meets an electron they annihilate one another.What in the world is an unhappy hyrdogen atom ?This may be absolutely clear to you. It makes no sense whatever to me. I have no idea what a sad hydrogen atom is, or what it might do to get happy. It is most commonly found as a hydrogen molecule, H2, and it is quite stable in that form. In the sun it is found as an ion, separated from the electron due to temperature.
Posted by DrRocket

Thanks for clearing that up. Sad Hydrogen. hahaha. That’s pretty good.
So on the sun Hydrogen is lacking its electron. And that makes them positively charged, right? Lots of them?
-KickLaBuka

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553
Replying to:
Thanks for clearing that up. Sad Hydrogen. hahaha. That’s pretty good. So on the sun Hydrogen is lacking its electron. And that makes them positively charged, right? Lots of them?
Posted by KickLaBuka

A hydrogen atom without it’s electron is called a proton.
Your credibility is sinking…..
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
A hydrogen atom without it’s electron is called a proton.Your credibility is sinking…..
Posted by MeteorWayne

We can call it a hydrogen ion too (not a positron… sorry doc). And there’s tons of them leaving the sun.
Is this what it comes to? Discredit anyone with ideas you don’t understand? What are you trying to gain by tearing down? Respect? Domination? Do you think the other readers give a rats ass if you find me credible?

-KickLaBuka

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
We can call it a hydrogen ion too (not a positron… sorry doc). And there’s tons of them leaving the sun.Is this what it comes to? Discredit anyone with ideas you don’t understand? What are you trying to gain by tearing down? Respect? Domination? Do you think the other readers give a rats ass if you find me credible?
Posted by KickLaBuka
But there are also tons of electrons leaving the sun. You cannot have just positively charged particles or just negatively charged particles streaming out. They would repel each other so strongley that they would disperse very quickly, and the charged left behind would self-destruct from the repulsive forces of the charges left behind.
I think Wayne does understand the ideas. That is the problem. The ideas won’t stand up to scrutiny and you lose credibility by continuing to advance them combined with an inability to answer the questions directed at you that are necessary to defend them Bottom line: You have been fed a line of baloney by the EU people and you have not yet been able to discern the myriad of reasons why those ideas are wrong. They are not revolutionary, they are not visionary, they violate very basic physics and are just nonsense. Don’t let yourself be duped by a bunch of wackos.
And finally, yes, many reader care a great deal about credibility. Wayne is pretty credible himself. There is a reason that EU proponents have no credibility whatever among serious scientists. Their ideas have been evaluated and found wanting. See for instance the discussion of plasma cosmology in either Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles or in Gravitation by Charles Misner, Kip Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler. These people are extremely good physicists. They have great respect for the work of Alfven in plasma physics. But they also recognize that plasma cosmology is not viable on scientific grounds. Worse is the distortions of Alflven’s work that is advanced by the modern EU community. Those distortions are bizarre to the point of simply being laughable. They tend to be self-contradictory and clearly at odds with ordinary classical physics in the form of Maxwell’s electrodynamics and Newtons’s theory of gravity. There is no conspracy to keep the “true word” of EU from public view, just good solid scientific inquiry and a peer review system that tends to keep wacko ideas from wasting time and space in serious scientific journals. It is EU, and not you personally, that has lost all credibilty. But if you persist in advocating long-discredited EU ideas, ideas that are demonstrably total nonsense, then you will be tarred with the same brush. You can avoid that fate by examining ideas closely in the light well-established classical physics, physics that is accepted by almost everyone — classical electrodynamics and classical mechanics.
*Moderator*

Saiph
First post: 7/12/2004
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 3118 I’d like to point out that at the temperatures involved in stellar core nuclear fusion, all the atoms are completely ionized. The temperatuers involved are tens of millions of degrees kelvin.
I’d like to address the idea you have that electrons are integral in the model of the atomic nucleus. They have no real influence there. Just take a look at the respective forces involved, even if you ignore the strong nuclear force. The electrons are ~0.1nm (~10^-10m) from the nucleus. The nucleus is on the order or 10^-15m across.
Electrons exert a force thats much, much weaker than the protons merely due to the distances involved. At 100,000 times closer the protons repulsive force is 10,000,000,000 times stronger than anything the electron can bring to bear.
Then, there’s the way the forces are exerted. The electrons exert an attractive pull on the protons, which would actually accentuate their own tendency to fly apart. The orbital shell isn’t pushing the protons into the nucleus, it’s trying to tug them out of it!
Because of this, there has to be some other force involved to overcome the electrical repulsion of the protons, and this is the strong nuclear force, or some force that acts just like it.

——————–SaiphMOD@gmail.com ——————-
“This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes “bing” when there’s stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I’ve learned to stay away from hens: It’s not pretty when they blow” — The Tenth Doctor, “Blink”

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
But there are also tons of electrons leaving the sun.
oh?
Replying to:
But if you persist in advocating long-discredited EU ideas, ideas that are demonstrably total nonsense, then you will be tarred with the same brush. You can avoid that fate by examining ideas closely in the light well-established classical physics, physics that is accepted by almost everyone — classical electrodynamics and classical mechanics.
Posted by DrRocket

Forget the sun. Electrodynamics doesn’t say the same thing about a charged sphere spinning, receiving current at a pole? The magnetic field doesn’t look like a balloon with the knot glued on the inside?
-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
I’d like to address the idea you have that electrons are integral in the model of the atomic nucleus. The orbital shell isn’t pushing the protons into the nucleus, it’s trying to tug them out of it!Because of this, there has to be some other force involved to overcome the electrical repulsion of the protons, and this is the strong nuclear force, or some force that acts just like it.
Posted by Saiph

I didn’t say the electrons were pushing the protons into the nucleus. I said the electrons were pulling the proton into the neutron when the neutron is between them. Your point is just, So the protons that make up the nucleus are separated only by massive neutrons, maybe some free space depending on shape, and they are held together by a strong nuclear force. 🙁
Does a proton all by itself have the same radius as the nucleus of a proton-electron pair? In essence, is the electron making the proton larger by pulling on it? Then, two stretched protons would be better off sharing a couple of electrons, if the energy level stretching them was lessened. 2H+ +2e- = H2 Why do electrons like to be in pairs? Why are the even numbered elements found more abundantly in free space?

-KickLaBuka

emperor_of_localgroup
First post: 2/5/2005
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 477
Replying to:
I didn’t say the electrons were pushing the protons into the nucleus. I said the electrons were pulling the proton into the neutron when the neutron is between them. Your point is just, So the protons that make up the nucleus are separated only by massive neutrons, maybe some free space depending on shape, and they are held together by a strong nuclear force. :(Does a proton all by itself have the same radius as the nucleus of a proton-electron pair? In essence, is the electron making the proton larger by pulling on it? Then, two stretched protons would be better off sharing a couple of electrons, if the energy level stretching them was lessened. 2H+ +2e- = H2 Why do electrons like to be in pairs? Why are the even numbered elements found more abundantly in free space?
Posted by KickLaBuka
Let me slightly divert the discussion. I’m still talking about electrons, protons, neutrons. This in no way means I’m agreeing with everything KickLaBuka says.
Why can’t we make the simplest of all atoms, a hydrogen atom? We can isolate electrons, we can isolate protons, noe all we need to do is bombard protons with electrons and we should have lots of hydrogen atoms in our hands. After all it supposed to take only -13.6eV energy. Why doesn’t this happen? Or does it (that I’m still not aware of)? Whereas in the primitive universe, not only hydrogens but other complex atoms were formed naturally. Doesn’t this tell us a secret that the environment in the primitive universe were very different than current environment in the universe. And that particle manufacturing environment is now completely lost?
If that is the case, what are the chances that laws of physics were the same in primitive universe as in the current universe? What I’m timidly (because this argument will not sit well with many readers here) trying to point out is extending current laws of physics to predict what happened in the big bang or immediately after big bang or long after big bang may not be a good idea.
This is just my coherent/incoherent thoughts. If I have made any factual mistakes I would gladly acknowledge my mistake.
Earth is Boring

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585
Replying to:
Let me slightly divert the discussion. I’m still talking about electrons, protons, neutrons. This in no way means I’m agreeing with everything KickLaBuka says.Why can’t we make the simplest of all atoms, a hydrogen atom? We can isolate electrons, we can isolate protons, noe all we need to do is bombard protons with electrons and we should have lots of hydrogen atoms in our hands. After all it supposed to take only -13.6eV energy. Why doesn’t this happen? Or does it (that I’m still not aware of)? Whereas in the primitive universe, not only hydrogens but other complex atoms were formed naturally. Doesn’t this tell us a secret that the environment in the primitive universe were very different than current environment in the universe. And that particle manufacturing environment is now completely lost?If that is the case, what are the chances that laws of physics were the same in primitive universe as in the current universe? What I’m timidly (because this argument will not sit well with many readers here) trying to point out is extending current laws of physics to predict what happened in the big bang or immediately after big bang or long after big bang may not be a good idea. This is just my coherent/incoherent thoughts. If I have made any factual mistakes I would gladly acknowledge my mistake.
Posted by emperor_of_localgroup
Take some hydrochloric acid and add a rusty nail to it and you will see bubbles form – thoes bubbles are hydrogen specifically H2. The HCl dissasociates to H+ and Cl-. The proton (H+) immediatle ‘grabs’ the nearest free electron and then 2 of the H atoms combine to form H2 and bubble merrily into the atmosphere. So we sorta ‘make’ Hydrogen all of the time – but it is more like we recycle it all the time.

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585 Replying to:
Replying to:
But there are also tons of electrons leaving the sun.
oh?

You seem to have a question about this – please refer to this page which is a space weather page and shows the proton and electron flux (as well as other paramaters) eminating from the sun:
http://www.n3kl.org/sun/noaa.html

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
extending current laws of physics to predict what happened in the big bang or immediately after big bang or long after big bang may not be a good idea.
Posted by emperor_of_localgroup

Halleluja!
Add present day though too.
-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
You seem to have a question about this – please refer to this page which is a space weather page and shows the proton and electron flux (as well as other paramaters) eminating from the sun
Posted by origin

THANKS!!!!
-KickLaBuka
*Moderator*

Saiph
First post: 7/12/2004
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 3118
Replying to:
Let me slightly divert the discussion. I’m still talking about electrons, protons, neutrons. This in no way means I’m agreeing with everything KickLaBuka says.Why can’t we make the simplest of all atoms, a hydrogen atom? We can isolate electrons, we can isolate protons, noe all we need to do is bombard protons with electrons and we should have lots of hydrogen atoms in our hands. After all it supposed to take only -13.6eV energy. Why doesn’t this happen? Or does it (that I’m still not aware of)? Whereas in the primitive universe, not only hydrogens but other complex atoms were formed naturally. Doesn’t this tell us a secret that the environment in the primitive universe were very different than current environment in the universe. And that particle manufacturing environment is now completely lost?If that is the case, what are the chances that laws of physics were the same in primitive universe as in the current universe? What I’m timidly (because this argument will not sit well with many readers here) trying to point out is extending current laws of physics to predict what happened in the big bang or immediately after big bang or long after big bang may not be a good idea. This is just my coherent/incoherent thoughts. If I have made any factual mistakes I would gladly acknowledge my mistake.
Posted by emperor_of_localgroup

Hydrogen atoms ARE just protons. Thats it. Nothing more, nothing less. A single proton by it’s lonesome is a hydrogne atom. A postive ion version true, but still hydrogen. If it captures an electron, it becomes a neutral hydrogen atom.
As for creating new protons from scratch (well, just pure energy) it can, and has been done. It just takes a very high energy gamma ray.

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585
Replying to:
extending current laws of physics to predict what happened in the big bang or immediately after big bang or long after big bang may not be a good idea.
Posted by emperor_of_localgroup

Halleluja!

Add present day though too.

Running the big bang backwards to the begining of the universe you get a situation where there is an infinitely hot and dense point which implies that general relativity breaksdown and is not applicable.
However shortly after the big bang > 10^-43 seconds current physics does apply, all the way to the current time. Does that mean there are no mysteries or unanswered questions – certainly not but current physics does quite well at explaining most of the universe. At very large scales and very small scales there is more to discover and the current models will have to be modified but it does not appear they will need to be discarded.

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
oh?Forget the sun. Electrodynamics doesn’t say the same thing about a charged sphere spinning, receiving current at a pole? The magnetic field doesn’t look like a balloon with the knot glued on the inside?
Posted by KickLaBuka
Nope.

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
Let me slightly divert the discussion. I’m still talking about electrons, protons, neutrons. This in no way means I’m agreeing with everything KickLaBuka says.Why can’t we make the simplest of all atoms, a hydrogen atom? We can isolate electrons, we can isolate protons, noe all we need to do is bombard protons with electrons and we should have lots of hydrogen atoms in our hands. After all it supposed to take only -13.6eV energy. Why doesn’t this happen? Or does it (that I’m still not aware of)? Whereas in the primitive universe, not only hydrogens but other complex atoms were formed naturally. Doesn’t this tell us a secret that the environment in the primitive universe were very different than current environment in the universe. And that particle manufacturing environment is now completely lost?If that is the case, what are the chances that laws of physics were the same in primitive universe as in the current universe? What I’m timidly (because this argument will not sit well with many readers here) trying to point out is extending current laws of physics to predict what happened in the big bang or immediately after big bang or long after big bang may not be a good idea. This is just my coherent/incoherent thoughts. If I have made any factual mistakes I would gladly acknowledge my mistake.
Posted by emperor_of_localgroup
There is no reason to believe that the laws of physics themselves have changed with time. To vary the laws of physics without any good reason to do is tantamount to invoking magic.
It is true that the evironment soon after the Big Bang was VERY different from the current environement. The particles that existed then, as a population, were rather different from those now. There were a LOT of photons. High energy photons. High energy photons can collide and produce massive particles. We don’t have that situation now.
You might enjoy reading Steven Weinberg’s book The First Three Minutes. It is a bit dated and precedes the current information regarding the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Nevertheless it is still vey good.

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
THANKS!!!!
Posted by KickLaBuka
Note that a proton and electron flux is rather different from a bunch of protons. It is in fact a description of a neutral plasma resulting from ionization of hydrogen.

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
Halleluja!Add present day though too.
Posted by KickLaBuka
By discarding the basic laws of physics, which are well-supported by a tremendous body of experimental evidence, a huge volume of very accurate predictions, and the clear success of engineering technologies based on those principles, you have clearly demonstrated that you are simply a blind advocate of the delusional precepts of EU theory. Totally hopeless. Completely clueless.
I thought that there might be hope for you. I was wrong.

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
By discarding the basic laws of physics, which are well-supported by a tremendous body of experimental evidence, a huge volume of very accurate predictions, and the clear success of engineering technologies based on those principles, you have clearly demonstrated that you are simply a blind advocate of the delusional precepts of EU theory. Totally hopeless. Completely clueless.I thought that there might be hope for you. I was wrong.
Posted by DrRocket
Supermassive invisible objects in the center of galaxies.
Negative gravity accelerating the universe.
Ignorance of electrical phenomenon in space, and flat out denial of its importance.
I’m trying a different way than that, because it just doesn’t make any physical sense at all. It’s troubling that you have given up on me, but there’s nothing I can do about it. I’m never going to believe black holes have to be supermassive. But I’m also not part of the PEU thinking. I believe in chemistry, they don’t. I’m also not part of the ejection of quasars consept.

-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154

Replying to:
Electrodynamics doesn’t say the same thing about a charged sphere spinning, receiving current at a pole? The magnetic field doesn’t look like a balloon with the knot glued on the inside?
Posted by KickLaBuka
Replying to:
Nope.
Posted by DrRocket
Pray tell, what does the magnetic field of a charged sphere spinning about an axis look like to you?
-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
Because of this, there has to be some other force involved to overcome the electrical repulsion of the protons, and this is the strong nuclear force, or some force that acts just like it.
Posted by Saiph

I understand the consept of strong nuclear force and slightly about the weak nuclear force. I’m again trying a different approach.
Don’t jump down my throat, but what of the magnetic field created by the fast moving electron. Wouldn’t that make spherical radial shells on either side of its orbital shell? At a still frame, it would be a loop tangent to its direction, but add up all of those loops as it quickly navigates the shell, and the overall magnetic field may hold the protons from going anywhere, even away from each other. Without reading a textbook, is that field ignored in particle physics?

-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
You seem to have a question about this – please refer to this page which is a space weather page and shows the proton and electron flux (as well as other paramaters) eminating from the sun:http://www.n3kl.org/sun/noaa.html
Posted by origin

Is this saying we receive 10^6 electrons/s where we receive 10^-1 protons/s? I am so confused. What of all of the protons leaving? What about the EM signature for hydrogen received? I know these questions are completely off, but please describe these graphs to me.
-KickLaBuka

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
Pray tell, what does the magnetic field of a charged sphere spinning about an axis look like to you?
Posted by KickLaBuka
Very much like the field of a coil. It is basically a torus.

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
Very much like the field of a coil. It is basically a torus.
Posted by DrRocket

Very good. And the center of that coil shares its axis, with what look like roots coming out the poles. Eventually they meet up, but off the page.
So a baloon with the top and the knot pressed inward and superglued together… That looks like a map of a magnetic field of equal strength. neat right?

-KickLaBuka

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
Very good. And the center of that coil shares its axis, with what look like roots coming out the poles. Eventually they meet up, but off the page.So a baloon with the top and the knot pressed inward and superglued together… That looks like a map of a magnetic field of equal strength. neat right?
Posted by KickLaBuka
Nope

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
Nope
Posted by DrRocket

Dr,
I’m sorry. Which part was as you so eliquently put, “nope?” I recall you shutting up every time electromagnetic theory is brought up, and your take on spherical coordinates is clearly lacking, but now you insist that the description I am telling you is inaccurate. Wait. You’re not even doing that. “nope.” You are clearly mistaken and I defy you to describe it better than “looks like a torus,” and differently than I describe. You are not only wasting efforts, but you are misleading the readers.

-KickLaBuka

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
Dr, I’m sorry. Which part was as you so eliquently put, “nope?” I recall you shutting up every time electromagnetic theory is brought up, and your take on spherical coordinates is clearly lacking, but now you insist that the description I am telling you is inaccurate. Wait. You’re not even doing that. “nope.” You are clearly mistaken and I defy you to describe it better than “looks like a torus,” and differently than I describe. You are not only wasting efforts, but you are misleading the readers.
Posted by KickLaBuka
I don’t recall every shying at the prospect of discussing electrodynamics, quite the contrary. I’m quite familiar with the subject. Your recollection is quite faulty. Why not go review the thread with Mozina, and see who consistently discussed electrodynamics the proper way — using Maxwell’s equations.
I am also quite familiar with spherical coordinates. If there is understanding that is lacking, is can assure you that it is on your part. I have taught the subject in universities on several occassions. Maybe you ought to refresh your memory, or go take the class. You might also want to brush up on your differential geometry, as that is more germane to the subject of spherical geometry than is the relatively elementary topic of spherical coordinates.
If you don’t like “looks like a torus” then how about “is a topological torus” ?
If you want precise criticisms, then you need to provide precise statements worthy of the effort.

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
discussed electrodynamics the proper way — using Maxwell’s equations. I am also quite familiar with spherical coordinates. I have taught the subject in universities on several occassions.
Posted by DrRocket

sucks for your students.
Sure, the magnetic field looks like a torus close to the charged sphere spinning, but from a distance, the balloon analogy is quite accurate. That’s what holds stars together. That’s why black holes are unnecessary.
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” – Max Plank

That’s good advice doctor. PZ
-KickLaBuka

emperor_of_localgroup
First post: 2/5/2005
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 477
Replying to:
I understand the consept of strong nuclear force and slightly about the weak nuclear force. I’m again trying a different approach.Don’t jump down my throat, but what of the magnetic field created by the fast moving electron. Wouldn’t that make spherical radial shells on either side of its orbital shell? At a still frame, it would be a loop tangent to its direction, but add up all of those loops as it quickly navigates the shell, and the overall magnetic field may hold the protons from going anywhere, even away from each other. Without reading a textbook, is that field ignored in particle physics?
Posted by KickLaBuka
Finally i’m reading your posts seriously. I can calculate and give you a numerical value of magnetic field originated from an electron and striking a nucleus (proton). But I don’t want to spend my time on that calculation unless I get a logical answer from you on this silly question.
According to your theory, if we strip off all electrons from a neutral atom, wouldn’t the nucleus disintegrate? I’m not sure if this can be done with atoms which have large number of electrons. But then how do alpha particles exist? Aren’t alpha particles just helium atoms without the electrons? Correct me, my chemistry-memory is fading fast.
Earth is Boring

emperor_of_localgroup
First post: 2/5/2005
Last post: 11/21/2008
Total posts: 477
Replying to:
Running the big bang backwards to the begining of the universe you get a situation where there is an infinitely hot and dense point which implies that general relativity breaksdown and is not applicable.However shortly after the big bang > 10^-43 seconds current physics does apply, all the way to the current time. Posted by origin
No, using current physics we got to the big bang in the first place. In other words, Big Bang didn’t give us current physics, current physics gave us big bang. In my opinion this is not another chicken and egg problem? Or is it?

Earth is Boring
*Moderator*

Saiph
First post: 7/12/2004
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 3118 No, you’re right on alpha particles.

And you can probably do a total ionization of larger atoms…granted it’ll take a lot of doing, but I’m sure it can be done.

——————–SaiphMOD@gmail.com ——————-
“This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes “bing” when there’s stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I’ve learned to stay away from hens: It’s not pretty when they blow” — The Tenth Doctor, “Blink”

Doc_Grey
First post: 11/2/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 26
Replying to:
sucks for your students. Sure, the magnetic field looks like a torus close to the charged sphere spinning, but from a distance, the balloon analogy is quite accurate. That’s what holds stars together. That’s why black holes are unnecessary. “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” – Max Plank That’s good advice doctor. PZ
Posted by KickLaBuka
KickLaBuka,
With all due respect, I’ve been following this thread from the start and have puzzled over many of your assertions. As I understand it you don’t think black holes aren’t necessarily massive and now you post that they aren’t even necessary (?) Necessary for what?
Also, stars are held together by magnetism, not gravity? Do you at least concede that they are formed due to gravitational forces?

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
sucks for your students.
Not at all. The students learned some real mathematics. At least those with the intelligence to understand and pas the course. You might do well to go back and review spherical coordinates yourself. You might also want to review spherical geometry if you still think that spherical coordinates tell the story — they don’t.
Replying to:
Sure, the magnetic field looks like a torus close to the charged sphere spinning, but from a distance, the balloon analogy is quite accurate. That’s what holds stars together. That’s why black holes are unnecessary.
Huh? How do you think that is accomplished. And of what relevance are black holes to the issue ?

Replying to:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” – Max Plank That’s good advice doctor. PZ
Posted by KickLaBuka
Is that supposed to be a death threat ? I don’t feel very threatened.
BTW Max Planck said of lot of silly things. Your quote is one of them
.

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
you don’t think black holes aren’t necessarily massive and now you post that they aren’t even necessary (?) Necessary for what?Also, stars are held together by magnetism, not gravity? Do you at least concede that they are formed due to gravitational forces?
Posted by Doc_Grey

Thank you for your comments.
I concede that they are formed by interactions of mass-charges. First nebulae, then arcing, creating heavier elements, more accretion, population II, supernova, population I and debris, which undergoes its own accretion.
They’re not visible in every galaxy, so they aren’t necessary to hold galaxies together. They’re a biproduct when binary systems form without a central star, and the result is a net flow through the center. I drew some pictures this past weekend with a pair both spinning the same direction, and another one with them spinning in opposite directions. The same thought can be applied to clusters rotating and revolving. With them spinning in opposite directions, the net flow looks like a hazy tilda, and when they’re spinning in the same direction, the net flow is through the center. It’s a mess to think about without drawing it, but the assertion (I prefer idea) is that pairs and groups undergo a balance of angular momentum (due to mass-charge interactions) with the result being a net revolution of spiral galaxies and others of nature’s storms.

-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
Finally i’m reading your posts seriously. I can calculate and give you a numerical value of magnetic field originated from an electron and striking a nucleus (proton). But I don’t want to spend my time on that calculation unless I get a logical answer from you on this silly question.According to your theory, if we strip off all electrons from a neutral atom, wouldn’t the nucleus disintegrate? I’m not sure if this can be done with atoms which have large number of electrons. But then how do alpha particles exist? Aren’t alpha particles just helium atoms without the electrons? Correct me, my chemistry-memory is fading fast.
Posted by emperor_of_localgroup

Thank you for your comments.
The electromass consept is not a theory. First a hypothesis must be made combining the emission spectrum line and the mass-charge enclosed. Then that hypothesis needs to be tested.
Helium completes its first shell. The two electrons won’t want a third electron because there’s not enough room for the surface area, but that third electron still wants to get involved with the positive charge (lithium). So it’s forced into an arm. As far as the chemistry involved with which elements are formed in which order, I don’t know right now. That arm is paired with another one opposite for better stabilization, then three more pairs of arms to stabilize as neon. That completes the second shell. Next is a shell of 8 more, and I think it looks like a sphere, but it may dip between the arms from the second shell. Those 8 are a good balance for that surface area.
To answer your question, we can draw the magnetic field of that electron, and it happens to look like spherical shells decreasing with distance from the electron path, both toward the nucleus and away from it. If we can determine the magnetic field there, could it be enough to hold a few protons together? To your other question, if we stripped all of the electrons, I think the nucleus would not stay together, but I could be wrong there. Different ionizations have different energies to strip. This is the first I’ve revisited He++ with these implications. There could still be a strong nuclear force, I just don’t understand how if there is. Is this process only seen under strenuous circumstances? Could there be a melding involved between the protons and neutrons? Is this process reversable?

-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
of what relevance are black holes to the issue ?Posted by DrRocket

“The choice is the Universe, or nothing.” H.G. Wells
That means that the entire scope must be considered for every question. That’s the relevance, and I’m pretty sure you don’t understand the relevance, but others have come on board. That makes me less wacko. I felt bad about what I said to you. I don’t wish harm on you. But that’s a great quote that has shown to be a powerful truth time and time again in discovery. Others are coming on board, with or without you.
-KickLaBuka

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585
Replying to:
No, using current physics we got to the big bang in the first place. In other words, Big Bang didn’t give us current physics, current physics gave us big bang. In my opinion this is not another chicken and egg problem? Or is it?
Posted by emperor_of_localgroup

My post was relative to the statement that in the past physics did not apply. The point I was trying to make was that when the age of the universe was less than 10^-43 seconds, general relativity breaksdown, so that any time after that, physics does apply.

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585
Replying to:
No, you’re right on alpha particles. And you can probably do a total ionization of larger atoms…granted it’ll take a lot of doing, but I’m sure it can be done.
Posted by Saiph

Larger atoms do completely ionize millions of times every day.
In nuclear fission, 2 fission products are typically produced; one with an atomic number in the mid 90s and another in the mid 130s. These fission product leave the nucleus at a significant fraction of the speed of light, leaving their electrons behind. These fast moving highly positively charged nuclei quickly slow down by secondary ionization as they strip away electrons from the surrounding atoms. This is where much of the heat from nuclear power comes from.

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
My post was relative to the statement that in the past physics did not apply. The point I was trying to make was that when the age of the universe was less than 10^-43 seconds, general relativity breaksdown, so that any time after that, physics does apply.
Posted by origin
Physics does apply prior to 10^-43 seconds. It is just that we don’t yet understand what that physics is. This specific problem motivates a large portion of the research in modern physics.
The problem is this. We have two major theories that underpin physics. One is general relativity. The other is quantum theory — the theory of the strong force, quantum chromodynamics and the theory of the electroweak force. General relativity is a classical theory, that is it is deterministic and produces specific predictions as to what must happen. Quantum theoryis a stochastic theory and produces only probabilities as to what will happen. General relativity and quantum theory are therefore not compatible and at least one, likely both, require revision.
Most, not all, physicists are of the opinion that the resolution will lie in a formulation of a quantum theory of gravity. The attempt to find such a theory lies behind the research in string theory and derivatives of string theory, such as M-theory. Unfortunately while some good mathematics has come from that research, it has not produced any new and testable physics. Yet.
General relativity, if run backwards, predicts, as you observed the Big Bang in the form of a singularity in space-time at time 0. As you also note, there are problems in the extremely early universe, because quantum effects become important at the energy levels and densities that are predicted. At that point the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum mechanics (in the form of particle physics) becomes a problem that our current knowledge of physics cannot overcome. Physics still works, but just don’t know the relevant principles — i.e. we don’t know the physics, but whatever it is it is working.
Shortly after the Big Bang, I’m not sure I would sign up to the 10^-43 s (that is perhaps when gravity would have become distinguishable from the strong and electroweak forces, but that is speculative), but in any case rather quickly, when the universe had a diameter on the order of a few centimeters, the effects of gravity and quantum mechanics can be treated separately to a good approximation. At that point the models start to work pretty well. There are still issues regarding the behavior of various scalar fields, and in particular the notion of “inflation” in its several forms. In any case there are some promising models.
But there are also some mysteries that remain. We have no idea what “dark energy” is, or really if it exists, but evidence is strong that something is causing the universe to behave as though there is a positive cosmological constant in the Einstein field equations. We have not much more of an idea of what “dark matter” is, although there are some candidates, but it is also clear that something is needed to supply the gravity that is evident but that cannot be supported by the amount of observed mass. So even not, well after 10^-43 s there are things remaining to be understood — more physics to be discovered.
There is physics to be discovered and understood now and in the early universe. We don’t know all that needs to be known. But we do know enough to understand quite a bit. We know enough to know that electrical universe “theory” is just EU nonsense. We know that gravity is a dominant force at large scales in the universe. We understand plasma theory well enough to understand what can be explained within that theory and what is nonsense. We have a very good understanding of electromagnetism — the classical theory due to Maxwell suffices for almost all purposes with high accuracy, and the quantum electrodynamics of Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga fills in the gaps and provides predictioins that have been verified to something like 16 decimal places. We know quite enough to be able to show that EU “theory” and this electromass junk are nonsense.
Now KicklaBucka will undoubtedly respond with charges that I am closed-minded, old and need to die and get out of the way of his new ideas. But the fact is that physics does indeed embrace new and visionary physics. But new and visionary physics must be developed within the framework of what has been known and experimentally verified, and that is all of the body of accepted physics within the known domains of validity. New physics must conform to the correspondence principle — it must agree with established physics under the conditioins in which that established physics has been shown to be accurate. You cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is difference between vision and hallucination, between open-mindedness and empty-headedness. The fundamental problem is the KicklaBucka simply does not understand basic physics (BS or no BS) and he is all wet.

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585 Replying to:
Physics does apply prior to 10^-43 seconds. It is just that we don’t yet understand what that physics is. This specific problem motivates a large portion of the research in modern physics.The problem is this. We have two major theories that underpin physics. One is general relativity. The other is quantum theory — the theory of the strong force, quantum chromodynamics and the theory of the electroweak force. General relativity is a classical theory, that is it is deterministic and produces specific predictions as to what must happen. Quantum theoryis a stochastic theory and produces only probabilities as to what will happen. General relativity and quantum theory are therefore not compatible and at least one, likely both, require revision.Most, not all, physicists are of the opinion that the resolution will lie in a formulation of a quantum theory of gravity. The attempt to find such a theory lies behind the research in string theory and derivatives of string theory, such as M-theory. Unfortunately while some good mathematics has come from that research, it has not produced any new and testable physics. Yet.General relativity, if run backwards, predicts, as you observed the Big Bang in the form of a singularity in space-time at time 0. As you also note, there are problems in the extremely early universe, because quantum effects become important at the energy levels and densities that are predicted. At that point the incompatibility of general relativity and quantum mechanics (in the form of particle physics) becomes a problem that our current knowledge of physics cannot overcome. Physics still works, but just don’t know the relevant principles — i.e. we don’t know the physics, but whatever it is it is working.Shortly after the Big Bang, I’m not sure I would sign up to the 10^-43 s (that is perhaps when gravity would have become distinguishable from the strong and electroweak forces, but that is speculative), but in any case rather quickly, when the universe had a diameter on the order of a few centimeters, the effects of gravity and quantum mechanics can be treated separately to a good approximation. At that point the models start to work pretty well. There are still issues regarding the behavior of various scalar fields, and in particular the notion of “inflation” in its several forms. In any case there are some promising models.But there are also some mysteries that remain. We have no idea what “dark energy” is, or really if it exists, but evidence is strong that something is causing the universe to behave as though there is a positive cosmological constant in the Einstein field equations. We have not much more of an idea of what “dark matter” is, although there are some candidates, but it is also clear that something is needed to supply the gravity that is evident but that cannot be supported by the amount of observed mass. So even not, well after 10^-43 s there are things remaining to be understood — more physics to be discovered.There is physics to be discovered and understood now and in the early universe. We don’t know all that needs to be known. But we do know enough to understand quite a bit. We know enough to know that electrical universe “theory” is just EU nonsense. We know that gravity is a dominant force at large scales in the universe. We understand plasma theory well enough to understand what can be explained within that theory and what is nonsense. We have a very good understanding of electromagnetism — the classical theory due to Maxwell suffices for almost all purposes with high accuracy, and the quantum electrodynamics of Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga fills in the gaps and provides predictioins that have been verified to something like 16 decimal places. We know quite enough to be able to show that EU “theory” and this electromass junk are nonsense.Now KicklaBucka will undoubtedly respond with charges that I am closed-minded, old and need to die and get out of the way of his new ideas. But the fact is that physics does indeed embrace new and visionary physics. But new and visionary physics must be developed within the framework of what has been known and experimentally verified, and that is all of the body of accepted physics within the known domains of validity. New physics must conform to the correspondence principle — it must agree with established physics under the conditioins in which that established physics has been shown to be accurate. You cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is difference between vision and hallucination, between open-mindedness and empty-headedness. The fundamental problem is the KicklaBucka simply does not understand basic physics (BS or no BS) and he is all wet.
Posted by DrRocket

Dr. Rocket, thank you for expounding and clarifying my post. I was using 10^-43 is ball park for the Planck Epoch. I guess the best summation is, “What I meant, is what he said”.

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
Physics does apply prior to 10^-43 seconds.
Posted by DrRocket

You can’t extrapolate time until you know how systems change as a function of it, which nobody does.
-KickLaBuka

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585
Replying to:
You can’t extrapolate time until you know how systems change as a function of it, which nobody does.
Posted by KickLaBuka

What does that mean?
I can tell you when the eclipse will be. That certainly sounds like we understand how time will affect the system of planet movements.

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
That certainly sounds like we understand how time will affect the system of planet movements.
Posted by origin

We haven’t seen enough galaxy or star movement to address their origin. You can tell the radius of the nearby movements, as well as the time. So from that we got speed, but we guessed mass of the planets because their charge was ignored in the assumption.
-KickLaBuka

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553 Replying to:
We haven’t seen enough galaxy or star movement to address their origin. You can tell the radius of the nearby movements, as well as the time. So from that we got speed, but we guessed mass of the planets because their charge was ignored in the assumption.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Radius of nearby movements? As well as Time? You are starting to babble now….
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585 Replying to:
You can tell the radius of the nearby movements, as well as the time. So from that we got speed, but we guessed mass of the planets because their charge was ignored in the assumption.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Dog lung snake ear quantum phlem.

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
Radius of nearby movements? As well as Time? You are starting to babble now….
Posted by MeteorWayne
No, he is continuing to babble. Recall the very first post:
“I believe the same rules apply at all scales, and it is best understood by thinking in spherical coordinates. Those rules are the forces of separated charge and the attraction of separated mass, and especially, the turning points associated with their combination. These two simple properties that exist most readily in atoms here on earth, can be used to explain all of the phenomenon in space without creating new properties of matter or new laws of physics.”
1) The statements have nothing whatever to do with spherical coordinates, which is the first red herring — and it starts in the very first sentence.
2) The second sentence begins with “Those rules” when no rules whatever were noted in the first sentence.
3) At the end of the second sentence we find “…and especially, the turning points associated with their combination,” another totally meaningless phrase.
4) The third sentence talks of “two simple properties that exist most readily in atoms here on earth” when no properties have been identified, only forces. Forces are not properties. Further, the forces active within the atom include not only electrostatic forces, but also magnetic forces due to the movement of the charged particles and those forces are subject to quantum effects, else the electron cloud would radiate continuously, lose energy and collapse into the nucleus. The strong and weak forces are also very important (dominant) once you start talking about the nucleus and what holds it together. Moreover, gravitational effects at the scale of the atom are negligible, completely trivial.
5) The last part of the last sentence intimates that electrostatics and gravity can explain all that is necessary in astrophysics. That is ridiculous. A huge piece of astrophysics, stellar physics in particular relies heavily on plasma physics. And in much of plasma physics the magnetic field behavior described by classical electrodynamics (charges in motion, currents varying in time) is critical, and forces due to charge separation can be neglected. Most of Alfven’s work for instance involved neutral plasma.
So the bable started with sentence one, and continues pretty much unabated. Thankfully the thread has been moved to “The Unexplained” which is the correct place for babble.

Mee_n_Mac
First post: 11/18/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 3427
Replying to:
We haven’t seen enough galaxy or star movement to address their origin. You can tell the radius of the nearby movements, as well as the time. So from that we got speed, but we guessed mass of the planets because their charge was ignored in the assumption.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Is it your contention that the orbits of the planets around the Sun depends not on gravity (alone) but also on some electromagnetic forces ? If so how would you go about explaining the discovery of Neptune whose orbit/position was predicted due to it’s gravitational (no charge/forces involved) influences on Uranus ?
—————————————————–
Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,
Ask it to, please for the love of all that’s Holy, STOP !

Meric
First post: 9/23/2008
Last post: 11/18/2008
Total posts: 26
Replying to:
sucks for your students. Posted by KickLaBuka
There are people who read a book on some radical theory and due to their lack of understanding of the subject matter they have a revelation and believe whole heartedly in this new radical theory. Most of the time they dont understand any mathematics behind these theories or mathematics of standard theories which prove these radical theories wrong.
Now in comes Dr. Rocket. He makes his first post and quite bluntly says you are completely wrong this is a very stupid statement you obviously have no understanding of the subject matter. However, he gives them a chance, he’ll pose a list of questions of why, how, and demonstrate these answers with math. They then take a shot at these questions, probably scrambling around google and biased sites on the subject matter and wind up with nothing but a bunch of gibberish copy and pasted together, not to mention no math. Dr. Rocket I’m sure roles his eyes and has a good chuckle and then disects the individual, and sure as the sun rises the rest of the discussions are based around how rude Dr. Rocket is or how close minded he is etc etc. What it really boils down to is they (they is you) realize they can not argue with Rocket because they actually know nothing about what he is saying, and he knows more about what you read then yourself. He never says new ideas are not acceptable but all he asks is for equations, calculations….just show so advanced knowledge that you truely understand BOTH sides of the coin. You have yet to do that.
You are just the latest victim. What really sucks is your wall you have undoubtedly put up against Dr. Rocket. His students are the lucky ones, for I would think it lucky to learn from a man as knowledgable and experienced as he, though tough and blunt. Yet, to those who truely want to learn, a privilege indeed.
Those who never make mistakes, are always led by those who do.

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
Is it your contention that the orbits of the planets around the Sun depends not on gravity (alone) but also on some electromagnetic forces ? If so how would you go about explaining the discovery of Neptune whose orbit/position was predicted due to it’s gravitational (no charge/forces involved) influences on Uranus ?
Posted by Mee_n_Mac

How was the mass of neptune determined in the first place? By its elipse, right? All the planets masses were determined that way. If the planets were all mass-charges, then there would be a turning point when attraction due to separated masses is overcome by EMAG. It would change our estimates of the mass of the planets. This turning point is well documented at around Z=1. The second turning point is where too much charge is on a surface, and it dips and discharges, breaking up the surface area and lowering the charge density.

-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
What it really boils down to is they (they is you) realize they can not argue with Rocket because they actually know nothing about what he is saying, and he knows more about what you read then yourself. He never says new ideas are not acceptable but all he asks is for equations, calculations….just show so advanced knowledge that you truely understand BOTH sides of the coin. You have yet to do that.
Posted by Meric

I could be wrong. And if I am, I’m quick to admit it. But I can’t and won’t be doing the checks alone.
-KickLaBuka

Doc_Grey
First post: 11/2/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 26
Replying to:
There are people who read a book on some radical theory and due to their lack of understanding of the subject matter they have a revelation and believe whole heartedly in this new radical theory. Most of the time they dont understand any mathematics behind these theories or mathematics of standard theories which prove these radical theories wrong. Now in comes Dr. Rocket. He makes his first post and quite bluntly says you are completely wrong this is a very stupid statement you obviously have no understanding of the subject matter. However, he gives them a chance, he’ll pose a list of questions of why, how, and demonstrate these answers with math. They then take a shot at these questions, probably scrambling around google and biased sites on the subject matter and wind up with nothing but a bunch of gibberish copy and pasted together, not to mention no math. Dr. Rocket I’m sure roles his eyes and has a good chuckle and then disects the individual, and sure as the sun rises the rest of the discussions are based around how rude Dr. Rocket is or how close minded he is etc etc. What it really boils down to is they (they is you) realize they can not argue with Rocket because they actually know nothing about what he is saying, and he knows more about what you read then yourself. He never says new ideas are not acceptable but all he asks is for equations, calculations….just show so advanced knowledge that you truely understand BOTH sides of the coin. You have yet to do that.You are just the latest victim. What really sucks is your wall you have undoubtedly put up against Dr. Rocket. His students are the lucky ones, for I would think it lucky to learn from a man as knowledgable and experienced as he, though tough and blunt. Yet, to those who truely want to learn, a privilege indeed.
Posted by Meric
Hear hear.
Ignorance is a lack of exposure or knowledge. Foolishness lies in denying the fact.

Meric
First post: 9/23/2008
Last post: 11/18/2008
Total posts: 26 It is not anyone’s job to prove your theory wrong. It is your job to support your theory and prove it right. Dr. Rocket, along with many others, have given you many questions to answer. Most were never answered, correctly. It is now up to you to further educate yourself and develop a better understanding of both sides to have a credible arguement here further. Yet, I doubt that will ever happen because
A. It is too much effort, and you really dont care.
B. Can’t understand what you are reading, or….
C. Realize you were indeed believing a bunch of EU wackos
Those who never make mistakes, are always led by those who do.

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553
Replying to:
How was the mass of neptune determined in the first place? By its elipse, right? All the planets masses were determined that way. If the planets were all mass-charges, then there would be a turning point when attraction due to separated masses is overcome by EMAG. It would change our estimates of the mass of the planets. This turning point is well documented at around Z=1. The second turning point is where too much charge is on a surface, and it dips and discharges, breaking up the surface area and lowering the charge density.
Posted by KickLaBuka

No, the mass of Neptune was not determined until it’s moons were observed. Only then can you calculate the mass of a body….you need something orbiting it, or passing by it close enough for it’s path to be perterbed by the mass.
This is pretty basic stuff, you know…
And it, as my education, is free of charge
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

Mee_n_Mac
First post: 11/18/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 3427
Replying to:
How was the mass of neptune determined in the first place? By its elipse, right? All the planets masses were determined that way. If the planets were all mass-charges, then there would be a turning point when attraction due to separated masses is overcome by EMAG. It would change our estimates of the mass of the planets. This turning point is well documented at around Z=1. The second turning point is where too much charge is on a surface, and it dips and discharges, breaking up the surface area and lowering the charge density.
Posted by KickLaBuka

I’m not sure you’ve got my point. Irregularities in the orbit of Uranus were noted. It was thought that another planet was influencing the orbit and using the observed perturbations and Newtons law of gravitation (no electromass theory) it was predicted where Neptune would be found. Were gravity to be different from expected, it would now require your theory to have the amazingly good luck to have just the proper balance of gravity and charge/??? to make it all work out as it actually did. From the wiki a couple of paragraphs of note …
“The discovery of the planet Neptune remains notable because it resulted from theoretical prediction of the existence of a major solar-system body without having previously seen it. What led to its discovery was indirect evidence from the marginal disturbing effects which it produced gravitationally on the observed motion of its neighbouring planet (in order of orbital size) Uranus. The actual discovery was made on September 23, 1846 at the Berlin Observatory, by astronomer Johann Gottfried Galle (assisted by Heinrich D’Arrest), working from the mathematical predictions of Urbain Le Verrierwhich Galle had received just that same morning. It was a sensational moment of 19th century science and dramatic confirmation of Newtonian gravitational theory.”
and
“Adams learned of the irregularities while still an undergraduate and became convinced of the “perturbation” hypothesis. Adams believed, in the face of anything that had been attempted before, that he could use the observed data on Uranus, and utilising nothing more than Newton’s law of gravitation, deduce the mass, position and orbit of the perturbing body.”
Note the bolded part. So does your theory account for all the orbits of the planets ?

—————————————————–
Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,
Ask it to, please for the love of all that’s Holy, STOP !

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
I’m not sure you’ve got my point. Irregularities in the orbit of Uranus were noted. It was thought that another planet was influencing the orbit and using the observed perturbations and Newtons law of gravitation (no electromass theory) it was predicted where Neptune would be found. Were gravity to be different from expected, it would now require your theory to have the amazingly good luck to have just the proper balance of gravity and charge/??? to make it all work out as it actually did. utilising nothing more than Newton’s law of gravitation, deduce the mass, position and orbit of the perturbing body.”Note the bolded part. So does your theory account for all the orbits of the planets ?
Posted by Mee_n_Mac

Coulombs law and universal gravitation look the same. So if the masses were off, the charge would correct for it and you’d see the same observation.
-KickLaBuka

Mee_n_Mac
First post: 11/18/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 3427 Replying to:
Coulombs law and universal gravitation look the same. So if the masses were off, the charge would correct for it and you’d see the same observation.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Almost look the same … there’s a question of sign that’s important here. Gravity is always attractive, electrostatic forces may be attractive or repulsive depending on the charges involved. If the Sun is primarily off 1 charge (let’s say +) and if Uranus’s orbit is determined by gravity and electrostatic attraction, then it must be primarily negatively charged. The same logic should also apply to Neptune. Now we have the case where both Uranus and Neptune are primarily negatively charged and should repel, not attract, each other. Such a case would have differed from what actually was observed, with Neptune’s gravity attractively perturbing Uranus.
—————————————————–
Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,
Ask it to, please for the love of all that’s Holy, STOP !

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585
Replying to:
Coulombs law and universal gravitation look the same. So if the masses were off, the charge would correct for it and you’d see the same observation.
Posted by KickLaBuka
Yeah, there both inverse square laws, so what. If the planets had truly massive charges associated with them you might have a point, but since they don’t, you don’t.

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553 Replying to:
Almost look the same … there’s a question of sign that’s important here. Gravity is always attractive, electrostatic forces may be attractive or repulsive depending on the charges involved. If the Sun is primarily off 1 charge (let’s say +) and if Uranus’s orbit is determined by gravity and electrostatic attraction, then it must be primarily negatively charged. The same logic should also apply to Neptune. Now we have the case where both Uranus and Neptune are primarily negatively charged and should repel, not attract, each other. Such a case would have differed from what actually was observed, with Neptune’s gravity attractively perturbing Uranus.
Posted by Mee_n_Mac

Nice!!
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

Meric
First post: 9/23/2008
Last post: 11/18/2008
Total posts: 26 Replying to:
Almost look the same … there’s a question of sign that’s important here. Gravity is always attractive, electrostatic forces may be attractive or repulsive depending on the charges involved. If the Sun is primarily off 1 charge (let’s say +) and if Uranus’s orbit is determined by gravity and electrostatic attraction, then it must be primarily negatively charged. The same logic should also apply to Neptune. Now we have the case where both Uranus and Neptune are primarily negatively charged and should repel, not attract, each other. Such a case would have differed from what actually was observed, with Neptune’s gravity attractively perturbing Uranus.
Posted by Mee_n_Mac

Not sure how anyone could argue against that, perhaps kicklabuka can admit he is wrong as he said he would if he was. Even I, can understand that, and I am far from an expert as you get.
Those who never make mistakes, are always led by those who do.

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
perhaps kicklabuka can admit he is wrong as he said he would if he was.
Posted by Meric

Charge matters a lot at the extremes (particles and galaxies). When mass overshadows charge (planets), charge (repulsive or attractive) would be dominated by attraction of mass, and it would be natural to forget to include it. Postulating everything is a mass-charge, the discovery of neptune perturbing uranus would still work out, it would just mean that the masses were slightly off, one way or another, depending on each other’s charge likeness or dislikeness.

-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 I owe it to you guys to talk about using quantum mechanics to predict particle physics. Quantum mechanics is exactly that, mechanics. It is NOT physics. I took two levels of quantum mechanics (as physics courses) in college, and though it works, it is not HOW it works. It’s just a statistical mathematical tool to explain what’s going on. I give my deepest respect at this point to anyone, including dr. rocket, who can even do that math.
So in short, quantum mechanics should be used as a check once the electromass CONCEPT has been developed further, rather than trying to expand quantum field theory, string theory, etc.
Why general relativity and quantum mechanics fails is not the purpose of this thread, but I’m sorry to have ignored those topics.
-KickLaBuka

Mee_n_Mac
First post: 11/18/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 3427
Replying to:
Charge matters a lot at the extremes (particles and galaxies). When mass overshadows charge (planets), charge (repulsive or attractive) would be dominated by attraction of mass, and it would be natural to forget to include it. Postulating everything is a mass-charge, the discovery of neptune perturbing uranus would still work out, it would just mean that the masses were slightly off, one way or another, depending on each other’s charge likeness or dislikeness.
Posted by KickLaBuka

So the earlier statement of “we guessed mass of the planets because their charge was ignored in the assumption” should be revised to “we calculated the mass of the planets, ignoring any electrostatic charges, which is a good assumption.” (because the planets don’t have any charge of significance)
Continuing on with “Charge matters a lot at the extremes (particles and galaxies)” I would ask how charge “matters” for galaxies ? May I assume that this charge and resulting forces are a result of stars becoming (very) ionized ? If so then how significant do you think the electrostatic forces are compared to gravity, 0.1X, 1.0X, 10.0X ? How big is “a lot” ?
—————————————————–
Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,
Ask it to, please for the love of all that’s Holy, STOP !

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
So the earlier statement of “we guessed mass of the planets because their charge was ignored in the assumption” should be revised to “we calculated the mass of the planets, ignoring any electrostatic charges, which is a good assumption.” (because the planets don’t have any charge of significance)Continuing on with “Charge matters a lot at the extremes (particles and galaxies)” I would ask how charge “matters” for galaxies ? May I assume that this charge and resulting forces are a result of stars becoming (very) ionized ? If so then how significant do you think the electrostatic forces are compared to gravity, 0.1X, 1.0X, 10.0X ? How big is “a lot” ?
Posted by Mee_n_Mac

no. The ignorance of low charge (spinning and in orbital motion) of a planet was a “small” error, nearly insignificant compared to its mass. The ignorance of the low mass of particles was a “small” error, nearly insignificant compared to its charge, but the fact that the charge was jogging that mass around and causing emission should have turned some heads.
The invention of supermassive black holes and dark energy, expansion of the universe and the big bang were big assumptions and thereby, big mistakes. It’s best not to make any assumptions, include the charge where it matters little and include the mass where it matters little. How much do they matter at each scale? That’s a long way off.

-KickLaBuka

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
no. The ignorance of low charge (spinning and in orbital motion) of a planet was a “small” error, nearly insignificant compared to its mass. The ignorance of the low mass of particles was a “small” error, nearly insignificant compared to its charge, but the fact that the charge was jogging that mass around and causing emission should have turned some heads.
What in the world do you mean by “the charge was jogging that mass around and causing emissions” ? Which particles ? What specific charge ? What emissions ?
Replying to:
The invention of supermassive black holes and dark energy, expansion of the universe and the big bang were big assumptions and thereby, big mistakes. It’s best not to make any assumptions, include the charge where it matters little and include the mass where it matters little. How much do they matter at each scale? That’s a long way off.
Posted by KickLaBuka
Black holes, supermassive or not, were not invented. Their existence was predicted by Subramanyan Chandrasekhar on the basis of knowledge of stellar physics and general relativity. Their existence has been supported by astronomical observations that have found objects with properties expected to be exhibited by such black holes.
The expansion of the universe is not an assumption. It is based on observations of the relationship of redshift to distance, the uniformity on large scales of the cosmic background radiation, and the implications of general relativity.
The Big Bang hypothesis is not an assumption. It is based on the observed expansion of the universe, the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation on a large scale, and the implications of general relativity. If you consider the oberved expansion of the universe and the mass that is seen in the universe, then Hawking and Penrose deduced from general relativity that the universe was in an extradordinally compact state in the past, the theory actually shows a singularity, which may indicate a breakdown in the theory of general relativity, but in any case results in a universe no more than a few centimeters in diameter.
The relative importance of charge and mass are well known and very quantifiable. Physicists do make assumptions regarding those effects, although they do make quantified approximations. It is well known how these properties scale. Since you claim a BS in physics you should be well aware of this.
For someone who claims to be a physicist by education you sure do post a lot of gibberish and false physics.

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
For someone who claims to be a physicist by education you sure do post a lot of gibberish and false physics.
Posted by DrRocket

I don’t really know how to put it simply to you.
Physics is studying HOW.
Math is a tool. Quantum mechanics is math. It’s predictive for the exact reason you described–because those electrons are moving so damn fast. EMAG is great because it is actual physics, using integration properly used, but it is so tough that quantum mechanics was the choice direction for subatomic research.
Einstein’s Theory was for a spec of time, and if it was off at all, you wind up with crappy singularities that should have turned heads.
Yes, I reject both to make way for a better approach. It doesn’t mean they’re wrong for their “known domains of validity.” But that doesn’t make them the right approach.
-KickLaBuka

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553 Replying to:
I don’t really know how to put it simply to you.Physics is studying HOW.Math is a tool. Quantum mechanics is math. It’s predictive for the exact reason you described–because those electrons are moving so damn fast. EMAG is great because it is actual physics, using integration properly used, but it is so tough that quantum mechanics was the choice direction for subatomic research. Einstein’s Theory was for a spec of time, and if it was off at all, you wind up with crappy singularities that should have turned heads.Yes, I reject both to make way for a better approach. It doesn’t mean they’re wrong for their “known domains of validity.” But that doesn’t make them the right approach.
Posted by KickLaBuka

But so far you have made no supported statements that make yours the right approach either. In fact, yours are so disjointed it’s difficult to even try and make any sense of them at all.
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

Mee_n_Mac
First post: 11/18/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 3427
Replying to:
no. The ignorance of low charge (spinning and in orbital motion) of a planet was a “small” error, nearly insignificant compared to its mass. Posted by KickLaBuka
Nearly insignificant ???? Why not insignificant ? How much of any planets (pick one) orbit is due to gravity and how much due to electrostatic forces ? Is this new orbital mechanics (gravity + charge) something that’s required by your electromass concept or merely allowed by it ?
Replying to:
The ignorance of the low mass of particles was a “small” error, nearly insignificant compared to its charge, but the fact that the charge was jogging that mass around and causing emission should have turned some heads. Posted by KickLaBuka
I have the same response as the Dr. Huh ? Are you back to talking about particles now, not planets ?
Replying to:
The invention of supermassive black holes and dark energy, expansion of the universe and the big bang were big assumptions and thereby, big mistakes. It’s best not to make any assumptions, include the charge where it matters little and include the mass where it matters little. How much do they matter at each scale? That’s a long way off.
Posted by KickLaBuka

I suspect a verrrry looong way off but so long as you’re having fun, have a go at it.
—————————————————–
Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,
Ask it to, please for the love of all that’s Holy, STOP !

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
Nearly insignificant ???? Why not insignificant ? How much of any planets (pick one) orbit is due to gravity and how much due to electrostatic forces ? Is this new orbital mechanics (gravity + charge) something that’s required by your electromass concept or merely allowed by it ?
Required at every scale. I don’t want to discourage you. Charge is nearly insignificant at the planetary level, but stars have way more charge than mass influence, and it dwarfs the attraction of mass. At the atomic level, mass is of less significance, but required for emission.Replying to:
Huh ? Are you back to talking about particles now, not planets ?
Every scale. Each scale has its own ratio between mass and charge. Call them three scales. Atomic, standard, galactic.
-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Helium is the best first case to look at. The electrons will have opposite spin to reduce angular momentum, and may be always perpendicular to each other. Their electric field to the protons would vary if blocked by a neutron and may cause them to take a slightly wider radius. This would make the shell look fuzzy, rather than smooth. The magnetic field created by the fast moving electron would make spherical shells decreasing with distance from the electron path, both toward the nucleus and away from it. At a still frame, it would be a loop tangent to its direction, but add up all of those loops as it quickly navigates the shell, and the overall magnetic field would reduce as it went away from the electron shell. The magnetic field value on the nucleus would always cause it to roll. As soon as the electrons leave their starting location, they will be getting closer to each other and bend into another plane. The nucleus would continuously be stopped and forced to roll a different way. Since protons and neutrons have mass, they would resist such due to the law of inertia. This would mean the only place the nucleus would want to be is at the center, despite the attraction of the protons to the electrons. It would also be suspect for the unique emission for each element and star.
It’s easier to strip fundamental protons and neutrons from larger elements because the magnetic field from the wider electron shells don’t hold it as tight. Those electrons are forced into those shells because after helium, there is no room for that charge on that surface. Lithium would have an extra electron as an arm, getting nearer to the first shell when the other two are away, and being forced to the end when they’re close. This pumping would cause it to be reactive. Angular momentum gains stability on the Magnesium, and the next many pairs. Ionization energies show it.
If we can determine the magnetic field there, both in direction and strength, could it be enough to hold a few protons together without a strong and weak force trying to balance?
Can the balance between mass and the charge riding on its surface be extended? I believe it can, indefinitely.
-KickLaBuka

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585
Replying to:
Helium is the best first case to look at. The electrons will have opposite spin to reduce angular momentum, and may be always perpendicular to each other. Their electric field to the protons would vary if blocked by a neutron and may cause them to take a slightly wider radius. This would make the shell look fuzzy, rather than smooth. The magnetic field created by the fast moving electron would make spherical shells decreasing with distance from the electron path, both toward the nucleus and away from it. At a still frame, it would be a loop tangent to its direction, but add up all of those loops as it quickly navigates the shell, and the overall magnetic field would reduce as it went away from the electron shell. The magnetic field value on the nucleus would always cause it to roll. As soon as the electrons leave their starting location, they will be getting closer to each other and bend into another plane. The nucleus would continuously be stopped and forced to roll a different way. Since protons and neutrons have mass, they would resist such due to the law of inertia. This would mean the only place the nucleus would want to be is at the center, despite the attraction of the protons to the electrons. It would also be suspect for the unique emission for each element and star. It’s easier to strip fundamental protons and neutrons from larger elements because the magnetic field from the wider electron shells don’t hold it as tight. Those electrons are forced into those shells because after helium, there is no room for that charge on that surface. Lithium would have an extra electron as an arm, getting nearer to the first shell when the other two are away, and being forced to the end when they’re close. This pumping would cause it to be reactive. Angular momentum gains stability on the Magnesium, and the next many pairs. Ionization energies show it.If we can determine the magnetic field there, both in direction and strength, could it be enough to hold a few protons together without a strong and weak force trying to balance?Can the balance between mass and the charge riding on its surface be extended? I believe it can, indefinitely.
Posted by KickLaBuka
If any of this is what you learned in your physics classes I think you should demand a refund!

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
If any of this is what you learned in your physics classes I think you should demand a refund!
Posted by origin

It doesn’t make sense to you? It’s discussing observations with known forces without adding new ones. I don’t really see why one would be so against such an outlook. Could you tell me which part is unreasonable?
-KickLaBuka

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553 Replying to:
It doesn’t make sense to you? It’s discussing observations with known forces without adding new ones. I don’t really see why one would be so against such an outlook. Could you tell me which part is unreasonable?
Posted by KickLaBuka

I can’t. It all is.
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

Doc_Grey
First post: 11/2/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 26
Replying to:
It doesn’t make sense to you? It’s discussing observations with known forces without adding new ones. I don’t really see why one would be so against such an outlook. Could you tell me which part is unreasonable?
Posted by KickLaBuka

With all due respect I think it’s more accurate to say discussing conjecture as opposed to observations.
I’m sure that you must at times feel like the the entirety of the denizens of this forum are against you but your posits are overwhelmingly in opposition to some of the most basic and widely accepted understandings in science. And usually in a way that either anthromopophizes (“want/wants”, “happy”, etc) or confuses (terms like “pumping).

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
I’m sure that you must at times feel like the the entirety of the denizens of this forum are against you but your posits are overwhelmingly in opposition to some of the most basic and widely accepted understandings in science.Posted by Doc_Grey

I bought QED by Feynman, and I’ll give it a chance. I do remember the quantum theory and einsteins theory; I remember not liking their basis, but I had to learn it to pass.
I even understand my “delusions” are in opposition to the most basic and widely accepted understandings in science.
The earth was flat until somebody challenged the notion.
-KickLaBuka

Mee_n_Mac
First post: 11/18/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 3427
Replying to:
Required at every scale. I don’t want to discourage you. Charge is nearly insignificant at the planetary level, but stars have way more charge than mass influence, and it dwarfs the attraction of mass. Posted by KickLaBuka

Don’t worry about discouraging me, I just didn’t want to “pile on” when I saw an obvious way to refute a portion of what you’ve been saying. I still think you’re clinging to a misperception, at least wrt the influences of “electromass” on the orbits in our solar system, but let me be sure I’ve understood your answer to my “planetary problem” before I go any further.
In essence what I think you’re now saying is that the planets don’t have much excess (beyond neutral) charge but the Sun does. Thus the electrostatic force between planets is small and so the perturbation previously mentioned is mass/gravity dominated. However your assertion above, “stars have way more charge than mass influence”, indicates to me that you think the Sun is charged enough that the electrostatic force between it and … say the Earth … is some significant portion of what we normally attribute to gravity (alone). I might even say from “dwarfs the attraction of mass” that you believe the electrostatic force is larger than the force due to gravity. In your view gravity is being aided (or counteracted) by the electrostatic force created mainly by the Sun. As a result our published numbers for either the Suns or Earths mass are not true. Am I understanding you correctly ?

—————————————————–
Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,
Ask it to, please for the love of all that’s Holy, STOP !

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
In your view gravity is being aided (or counteracted) by the electrostatic force created mainly by the Sun. As a result our published numbers for either the Suns or Earths mass are not true. Am I understanding you correctly ?
Posted by Mee_n_Mac

Hesitantly, I proceed, but I did purchase feynman’s book QED and I WILL read it objectively.
Not electrostatic, but otherwise, you summed up my claim. Even the difference in charge between the sun and earth may not be enough to change the calculated masses by much. The planets may just not have enough charge to make much of a difference–any of them–except maybe mercury. That thing is movin. Beyond the solar system is where this is more aparent, like between the sun and its neighbors, between clusters of stars, and in overall galaxies. My claim is that the electromagnetic forces created by these stars are generating a current towards them; but also perpendicularly between them, and that is the current that is binding them. Draw two point charges spinning and they will create torus-like magnetic fields. If they’re spinning in the same direction, they will have added magnetic fields perpendicular to the line between them. that will make an easier pathway for current along those lines. That flow of current will create magnetic loops (like a cylinder). That is basic electromagnetic theory and I’m not positing any delusions. They only become delusions when I say stars are electromagnets.
-KickLaBuka

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553 Replying to:
I bought QED by Feynman, and I’ll give it a chance. I do remember the quantum theory and einsteins theory; I remember not liking their basis, but I had to learn it to pass. I even understand my “delusions” are in opposition to the most basic and widely accepted understandings in science. The earth was flat until somebody challenged the notion.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Learn it to pass what?
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553 Replying to:
With all due respect I think it’s more accurate to say discussing conjecture as opposed to observations.I’m sure that you must at times feel like the the entirety of the denizens of this forum are against you but your posits are overwhelmingly in opposition to some of the most basic and widely accepted understandings in science. And usually in a way that either anthromopophizes (“want/wants”, “happy”, etc) or confuses (terms like “pumping).
Posted by Doc_Grey

But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
Learn it to pass what?
Posted by MeteorWayne

nevermind about that. Let’s just assume I never finished high school.
-KickLaBuka

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585
Replying to:
nevermind about that. Let’s just assume I never finished high school.
Posted by KickLaBuka

OK, then you should not dismiss what people are saying to you. Many of the people here have an education in these fields or at least have taken courses in these fields, so try to understand what their points are. If their points don’t make sense to you then simply ask for clarification, don’t dimiss them!

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
OK, then you should not dismiss what people are saying to you. Many of the people here have an education in these fields or at least have taken courses in these fields, so try to understand what their points are. If their points don’t make sense to you then simply ask for clarification, don’t dimiss them!
Posted by origin

But the fundamentals of electromagnetic theory make way more sense than the accepted model for galaxies. Assuming I have no formal education doesn’t mean that electromagnetic theory does not apply. It clearly does if you know its rules and look at the pictures on the internet. How can so many people miss that?
-KickLaBuka

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553 Replying to:
But the fundamentals of electromagnetic theory make way more sense than the accepted model for galaxies. Assuming I have no formal education doesn’t mean that electromagnetic theory does not apply. It clearly does if you know its rules and look at the pictures on the internet. How can so many people miss that?
Posted by KickLaBuka

Ahh, it’s the infamous “I can look at pictures on Teh Interwebz and find something new that overturns decades of well studied physics” effect.
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
Ahh, it’s the infamous “I can look at pictures on Teh Interwebz and find something new that overturns decades of well studied physics” effect.
Posted by MeteorWayne

Indeed. So you would rather ignore yet another thing, this time, sense of sight. Do you actually believe black holes have to be supermassive? Because if stars are just point charges, then electromagnetic theory easily accounts for the existance of black holes, why they don’t have to be supermassive, as well as the syfert galaxies.

-KickLaBuka

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585
Replying to:
Indeed. So you would rather ignore yet another thing, this time, sense of sight. Do you actually believe black holes have to be supermassive? Because if stars are just point charges, then electromagnetic theory easily accounts for the existance of black holes, why they don’t have to be supermassive, as well as the syfert galaxies.
Posted by KickLaBuka

There is NO mechanism involving electrical charges to account for a black hole. There is ONLY one force known that can create a black hole and that is gravity. The reason that black holes are so massive is that the gravity has to be so strong that it can actually force matter such as 2 neutrons to occupy the same space.
While doing a little research I stumbled onto this site, take a look at this with an open mind and see what you think:
http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/home.html

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585
Replying to:
But the fundamentals of electromagnetic theory make way more sense than the accepted model for galaxies. Assuming I have no formal education doesn’t mean that electromagnetic theory does not apply. It clearly does if you know its rules and look at the pictures on the internet. How can so many people miss that?
Posted by KickLaBuka

How could electromagnet theory possibly make a galaxy. If the center of the galaxy had one charge and the stars around it had the opposite charge then all the stars would repel each other, so there would be no sprial arms to the galaxy.
Gravity clearly is responsible for the orbit of the moon and the tides. Gravity is clearly is the cause of our orbit around the sun, it is very easy to calculate and prove. The gravitational affects on a baseball, the space lab or the moon all use the same mathematical formulas. We use the gravity of planets to ‘slingshot’ space craft to higher velocities and the use gravity of planets to slow them down – electrodynamics do not come into play at all and these space craft respond just as anticipated. How is that explainable if gravity is not responsible for these affects?
If a difference in charge was responsible for this or any other orbital system it would be very easy to detect because the charge would be astronomically huge and the moving charges would have correspondingly huge magnetic fields. It would be easy to detect. Not to mention that the charge would dissapate as charged particles were drawn off of one body to the other body.
The rotating magnetic field of neutron stars result in pulsars which again are very easy (for astronomers) to detect. It is not like astronomers ignore electromagnetic effects, they clearly do not, but they are driven to develop theories based on evidence and there is no evidence that electrodynamics have meaningful affect on a galaxies cohession.

Mee_n_Mac
First post: 11/18/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 3427
Replying to:
We use the gravity of planets to ‘slingshot’ space craft to higher velocities and the use gravity of planets to slow them down – electrodynamics do not come into play at all and these space craft respond just as anticipated. How is that explainable if gravity is not responsible for these affects?
Posted by origin

I was going to lead KLB down this exact path next … but there you go.
—————————————————–
Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,
Ask it to, please for the love of all that’s Holy, STOP !

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553 Replying to:
Indeed. So you would rather ignore yet another thing, this time, sense of sight. Do you actually believe black holes have to be supermassive? Because if stars are just point charges, then electromagnetic theory easily accounts for the existance of black holes, why they don’t have to be supermassive, as well as the syfert galaxies.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Yes, black holes have to have sufficient density. Small black holes don’t have to be supermassive, depending on how you define that term. Black holes are formed by sufficient mass in a volume. If it’s a small volume (i.e. marble sized) it’s not “supermassive” But if it’s the size of Mercury’s orbit, then yes supermassive would apply. This is all basic physics, which your BS should have already allowed you to understand. Whichever kind of BS it is.
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
There is ONLY one force known that can create a black hole and that is gravity.
Posted by origin

Really? We have gravity here on earth but have yet to create such a thing… We can only dream of gravity creating such a thing, which makes it no different from electromass.
-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
How could electromagnet theory possibly make a galaxy. If the center of the galaxy had one charge and the stars around it had the opposite charge then all the stars would repel each other, so there would be no sprial arms to the galaxy. Posted by origin

first you have to understand what the magnetic field looks like between charged balls, both those rotating in the same direction and those rotating in different directions. Do you need me to repeat it again? It implies that the charge in the center of the galaxy is a flow of charge, moving straight through it (seen as x-rays and radio waves). that makes the whole thing spin and look like a spiral. It also binds the stars by its magnetic loops.

-KickLaBuka

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553 Replying to:
Really? We have gravity here on earth but have yet to create such a thing… We can only dream of gravity creating such a thing, which makes it no different from electromass.
Posted by KickLaBuka

That is not correct. Strong enough gravity does create a black hole. All the math says so. It is not a dream. The amount of mass in the volume clearly shows that a black hole will be created. Electromass hass no math to back it up so far. Feel free to correct that, but you need to show how enough “electromass” whatever that is, can create the conditions that would distort space-time in that way. So far you have stated “it looks like this in pictures” which is not science.
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
Gravity clearly is responsible for the orbit of the moon and the tides. Gravity is clearly is the cause of our orbit around the sun, it is very easy to calculate and prove. The gravitational affects on a baseball, the space lab or the moon all use the same mathematical formulas. We use the gravity of planets to ‘slingshot’ space craft to higher velocities and the use gravity of planets to slow them down – electrodynamics do not come into play at all and these space craft respond just as anticipated. How is that explainable if gravity is not responsible for these affects?
Posted by origin

Gravity is responsible for tides, baseballs, space ships, venus’ and mars’ orbit, and soap box cars. Earth, Mercury, Uranus, Neptune, all have a noticable blend of mass and charge, as do stars working with each other.
-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
That is not correct. Strong enough gravity does create a black hole. All the math says so. It is not a dream.
Posted by MeteorWayne

You’re right, I have not created the math connecting attraction of mass to the line integral form from electromagnetic theory.
All the math says so? So it must be “possible?” no.
-KickLaBuka

MeteorWayne
First post: 6/19/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 15553 Replying to:
Gravity is responsible for tides, baseballs, space ships, venus’ and mars’ orbit, and soap box cars. Earth, Mercury, Uranus, Neptune, all have a noticable blend of mass and charge, as do stars working with each other.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Then please show how the charge is required to show a deviation from pure newtonian physics. (except for Mercury, where the relatiavistic effects are measurable, and verified). So far you have not done so. You have said it is true from your pictorial viewpoint, but you have provided no scientific support for your assertions, just “cause I see it this way”. That is not sufficient to overturn current physics…
But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.
I really, really, really, really miss the “first unread post” function

Mee_n_Mac
First post: 11/18/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 3427 Replying to:
Gravity is responsible for tides, baseballs, space ships, venus’ and mars’ orbit, and soap box cars. Earth, Mercury, Uranus, Neptune, all have a noticable blend of mass and charge, as do stars working with each other.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Sorry I cry “foul”. I’m pretty sure I can disprove any conjecture which says Earths orbit is due in any measureable way to forces other than gravity. I thought you had admitted such. I can supply the numbers if we want to go that far but you’ve heard the heuristic argument already. We know the mass of the Earth if only because we know the mass and orbits of the satellites we’ve put up. Likewise we know the mass of the Sun and the Earths orbit. The force needed to make this orbit is consistent with gravity acting alone. If you put another force into the equation then the gravitational force must be different and that means our mesured masses must be wrong. So how do you account for the measurements made to date ?
—————————————————–
Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,
Ask it to, please for the love of all that’s Holy, STOP !

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
Sorry I cry “foul”. I’m pretty sure I can disprove any conjecture which says Earths orbit is due in any measureable way to forces other than gravity. I thought you had admitted such. I can supply the numbers if we want to go that far but you’ve heard the heuristic argument already. We know the mass of the Earth if only because we know the mass and orbits of the satellites we’ve put up. Likewise we know the mass of the Sun and the Earths orbit. The force needed to make this orbit is consistent with gravity acting alone. If you put another force into the equation then the gravitational force must be different and that means our mesured masses must be wrong. So how do you account for the measurements made to date ?
Posted by Mee_n_Mac

A neutrally charged object in orbit will not exert electromagnetic forces with the earth, just like venus does not exert electromagnetic forces with the sun. But if something in orbit wants in to earth, they have to pass the strong ionized boundary.
further, we know what the sun does to our magnetic field. It peels it away from the solar wind. It would be foolish to think they were not related to each other. Just because it is hardly measureable and we’re happy with the mass of earth and the sun, doesn’t make it exact, and that deviation from exactness is screaming with the observations of galaxies and why they are staying together, despite the calculated masses of the stars not being enough. Black holes having mass were to cover for this error.

-KickLaBuka

Mee_n_Mac
First post: 11/18/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 3427
Replying to:
A neutrally charged object in orbit will not exert electromagnetic forces with the earth, just like venus does not exert electromagnetic forces with the sun. But if something in orbit wants in to earth, they have to pass the strong ionized boundary. further, we know what the sun does to our magnetic field. It peels it away from the solar wind. It would be foolish to think they were not related to each other. Just because it is hardly measureable and we’re happy with the mass of earth and the sun, doesn’t make it exact, and that deviation from exactness is screaming with the observations of galaxies and why they are staying together, despite the calculated masses of the stars not being enough. Black holes having mass were to cover for this error.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Please let me know which it is ….
One one hand you say “Gravity is responsible for tides, baseballs, space ships, venus’ and mars’ orbit, and soap box cars. Earth, Mercury, Uranus, Neptune, all have a noticable blend of mass and charge, as do stars working with each other.” And then you say the above “Just because it is hardly measureable and we’re happy with the mass of earth and the sun, doesn’t make it exact”.
So is the contribution of EM to Earth’s orbit around the Sun hardly measurable or noticable ?
—————————————————–
Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,
Ask it to, please for the love of all that’s Holy, STOP !

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 2257
Replying to:
But the fundamentals of electromagnetic theory make way more sense than the accepted model for galaxies. Assuming I have no formal education doesn’t mean that electromagnetic theory does not apply. It clearly does if you know its rules and look at the pictures on the internet. How can so many people miss that?
Posted by KickLaBuka
You cannot apply the “rules” of electrodynamics to pictures. Physics is based on quantitative relationships among measureable quantities. One of the primary falacies of EU proponents is arguing physics on the bais of what something “looks like” in photographs. You simply cannot argue on the basis of electrodynamics without being able to define and support in a quantitative way the fields, charges and current densities necessary to the subjecct.
The DNA nebula “looks like” a DNA molecule, and some EU proponents have argued that there is a connection. In reality the DNA nebula has nothing to do with molecular biology and there is no connection at all.

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
You cannot apply the “rules” of electrodynamics to pictures. Physics is based on quantitative relationships among measureable quantities. One of the primary falacies of EU proponents is arguing physics on the bais of what something “looks like” in photographs. You simply cannot argue on the basis of electrodynamics without being able to define and support in a quantitative way the fields, charges and current densities necessary to the subjecct.The DNA nebula “looks like” a DNA molecule, and some EU proponents have argued that there is a connection. In reality the DNA nebula has nothing to do with molecular biology and there is no connection at all.
Posted by DrRocket

Well, I think all the data we need is locked up in the emission lines. But it looks like I’ll be the only one who cares to try, because you people are quite certain your reality consists of already having all the answers.
The line integral of the emission spectrum line is equal to lambda naught over (lambda naught plus redshift) times a constant, times a single order mass-charge polynomial enclosed. That seems to make the most sense and deserves to be investigated.
-KickLaBuka

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585 Replying to:
The line integral of the emission spectrum line is equal to lamda naught over redshift times a constant, times a single order mass-charge polynomial enclosed. That seems to make the most sense and deserves to be investigated.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Well it makes no sense to me, could you explain further? The spectrum of a luminuos object is just a series of emissions lines of a certain wavelengths. What in the world do you mean by integrating the spectrum? What would this give you?

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
Well it makes no sense to me, could you explain further? The spectrum of a luminuos object is just a series of emissions lines of a certain wavelengths. What in the world do you mean by integrating the spectrum? What would this give you?
Posted by origin

Well, you can solve for lamda vector, write an equation for the different spectrum that will cause emission at those certain wavelengths, then you can basically take any observed spectrum and determine the components–mass and charge.
-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
If you put another force into the equation then the gravitational force must be different and that means our mesured masses must be wrong. So how do you account for the measurements made to date ?
Posted by Mee_n_Mac

They get more and more suspect as you try to use those equations for bigger and bigger charged objects.
-KickLaBuka

Mee_n_Mac
First post: 11/18/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 3427 Replying to:
They get more and more suspect as you try to use those equations for bigger and bigger charged objects.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Like what objects …. the Sun, the Earth, Mercury and/or Venus ? You might try thinking about how the MESSENGER spacecraft achieved all it’s gravity assist delta-Vs without using your theory, using gravity as we presently know it. Either charge was not important in all it’s orbital changes, thus confirming the math and theory behind them (along with the masses of all the involved heavenly bodies, aforementioned herein) or miraculously MESSENGER gained and lost charge at just the right spots and times to make your theory work with the heavenly bodies, charged and uncharged.
—————————————————–
Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,
Ask it to, please for the love of all that’s Holy, STOP !

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/24/2008
Total posts: 585
Replying to:
Well, you can solve for lamda vector, write an equation for the different spectrum that will cause emission at those certain wavelengths, then you can basically take any observed spectrum and determine the components–mass and charge.
Posted by KickLaBuka

You are going to have to explain yourself better than that. The emission lines tell you the type of atom and the ionizations state of that atom because of the emissions are from the electrons orbiting the atom. Is this what you are talking about or something else? Maybe if you wrote out the equation it would help.

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
Like what objects …. the Sun, the Earth, Mercury and/or Venus ? You might try thinking about how the MESSENGER spacecraft achieved all it’s gravity assist delta-Vs without using your theory, using gravity as we presently know it. Either charge was not important in all it’s orbital changes, thus confirming the math and theory behind them (along with the masses of all the involved heavenly bodies, aforementioned herein) or miraculously MESSENGER gained and lost charge at just the right spots and times to make your theory work with the heavenly bodies, charged and uncharged.
Posted by Mee_n_Mac

It’s a consept. And the big objects I’m referring to are stars, clusters of stars, galaxies, their motions, the cause of their motions, their masses, and the energy from the emission spectrum between redshifted galaxies. You’re not thinking big enough.
-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154 Replying to:
You are going to have to explain yourself better than that. The emission lines tell you the type of atom and the ionizations state of that atom because of the emissions are from the electrons orbiting the atom. Is this what you are talking about or something else? Maybe if you wrote out the equation it would help.
Posted by origin

Do you know the mathematics involved in electromagnetic theory? What I wrote was the equation. I’m not a mathemetician. But the emission lines that tell you information about the atom are captured the same way for things of all sizes. If you can perfect a way to bounce between the object and the spectrum, you can take captured emission lines from the whole spectrum, and describe the source. This leads to a chain of events that include answering the distance question.
-KickLaBuka

Doc_Grey
First post: 11/2/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 26 KLB,
You stated at the onset of this discussion that the same forces apply on all scales yet have done nothing but drift farther away from that assertion.
Pray tell, how can emission lines reveal an object’s mass? And without seemingly meaningless terms such as “bouncing” between the object and the spectrum?

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
KLB,You stated at the onset of this discussion that the same forces apply on all scales yet have done nothing but drift farther away from that assertion.Pray tell, how can emission lines reveal an object’s mass? And without seemingly meaningless terms such as “bouncing” between the object and the spectrum?
Posted by Doc_Grey

The spectrum is an object’s signature, so there exists an equivalance equation between the signature and the properties of the source. The emission equation can formalize the relationship between the particles and the spectrum “wave-particle duality.” Soo, one will be able to look at a spectrum and deduce the mass and charge emitting from it. If you have other questions left unanswered about the consept and other hallucinations, please repeat them.

-KickLaBuka

Mee_n_Mac
First post: 11/18/2006
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 3427 Replying to:
It’s a consept. And the big objects I’m referring to are stars, clusters of stars, galaxies, their motions, the cause of their motions, their masses, and the energy from the emission spectrum between redshifted galaxies. You’re not thinking big enough.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Okie dokie then. I was responding to your assertions that charge played an important part in the orbital mechanics of “Earth, Mercury, Uranus, Neptune” and presumably their interactions with the Sun. I think I’ve shown this can’t be the case.
—————————————————–
Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,
Ask it to, please for the love of all that’s Holy, STOP !

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
Okie dokie then. I was responding to your assertions that charge played an important part in the orbital mechanics of “Earth, Mercury, Uranus, Neptune” and presumably their interactions with the Sun. I think I’ve shown this can’t be the case.
Posted by Mee_n_Mac

Charge does not have to be substantial to be important, and ignoring it is what caused the problem in greater cosmology where it is suprememly important.
You have shown that charge does not play a substantial role in the mass calculation of earth as compared to a charged satellite. Whether or not that satellite changed its ground charge along its flight is left for speculation. Flying around the solar system would leave it suseptable to lots of solar wind and magnetic induction. We know other flying objects quickly develop unlike charge from their source time and location. Do you really think all heavenly bodies are charged the exact same? Outside the heliopause, you have currents that are substantial, which is why universal gravitation alone is insufficient. You may be happy with it for the solar system. It’s probably pretty close for the solar system.

-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 154
Replying to:
You are going to have to explain yourself better than that. The emission lines tell you the type of atom and the ionizations state of that atom because of the emissions are from the electrons orbiting the atom. Is this what you are talking about or something else? Maybe if you wrote out the equation it would help.
Posted by origin

I’m contending that emission is caused by the shaking of the nucleus, which is caused by the electrons orbiting the atom. It’s the nucleus that’s emitting.

-KickLaBuka

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/26/2008
Total posts: 2276
Replying to:
I’m contending that emission is caused by the shaking of the nucleus, which is caused by the electrons orbiting the atom. It’s the nucleus that’s emitting.
Posted by KickLaBuka
The emissions seen in light spectra have nothing to do with the nucleus. They are the result in changes in energy levels of the electrons that surround the nucleus. When an electron drops down to a lower energy state, a photon of a frequence that precisely reflects the change in energy is emitted.
“Shaking” of the nucleus is a the phenomena that is detected in nuclear magnetic resonance by that is a different matter entirely.

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/26/2008
Total posts: 2276
Replying to:
Well, you can solve for lamda vector, write an equation for the different spectrum that will cause emission at those certain wavelengths, then you can basically take any observed spectrum and determine the components–mass and charge.
Posted by KickLaBuka
Please explain in detail or provide a reference describing in detail the calculation that you are proposing.
What is the “lambda vector” ? In spectroscopy lambda generally is a symbol that stands for wavelength. Do you have some other meaning in mind ?

origin
First post: 4/19/2007
Last post: 11/25/2008
Total posts: 587
Replying to:
You are taking the integral of the spectral signature, across the entire set of wavelengths. Origin already told us the peaks indicate the atoms. I agree with him.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Whoa! I said the spectrum is from the electrons associated with the atom – don’t you dare put me within miles of your assertions about shaking nuclei or determining a mass of a body by it’s spectrum.
I think in general if you agree with what I have said, then you have probably misunderstood me!

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/26/2008
Total posts: 160 Replying to:
The emissions seen in light spectra have nothing to do with the nucleus. They are the result in changes in energy levels of the electrons that surround the nucleus. When an electron drops down to a lower energy state, a photon of a frequence that precisely reflects the change in energy is emitted.”Shaking” of the nucleus is a the phenomena that is detected in nuclear magnetic resonance by that is a different matter entirely.
Posted by DrRocket

The magnetic field loops of the electrons have a direct influence on such magnetic resonance. If the electrons are in higher energy orbits, they are inflicting a different magnetic field on that nucleus. How could the nuclear magnetic resonance that you speak of have so little to do with the electrons, and how could you possibly assert such a thing? You talk about my assertions. “This has absolutely nothing to do with that, a different matter entirely” is quite a claim that you tend to make on numerous occasions.
-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/26/2008
Total posts: 160 Replying to:
Please explain in detail or provide a reference describing in detail the calculation that you are proposing.What is the “lambda vector” ? In spectroscopy lambda generally is a symbol that stands for wavelength. Do you have some other meaning in mind ?
Posted by DrRocket

I’ll have to dig it up. Or you can just check it and tell me this was the biggest waste of your time. The math guy that confirmed tha tit makes physical sense is not nearby, and he actually has my latest revision of that formula. I think it looks something like that to start. If you know the math, you can develop the visualizations from its implications. All I know are the physical rules and a tiny portion of the math.
-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/26/2008
Total posts: 160 Replying to:
I think in general if you agree with what I have said, then you have probably misunderstood me!
Posted by origin

I agree that Origin does not agree with me, who agrees with me.
-KickLaBuka

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/26/2008
Total posts: 160 Replying to:
In spectroscopy lambda generally is a symbol that stands for wavelength. Do you have some other meaning in mind ?
Posted by DrRocket

Nope. That’s the lambda. Integrate it from radio waves to gamma rays.
-KickLaBuka

DrRocket
First post: 4/12/2008
Last post: 11/26/2008
Total posts: 2276
Replying to:
Nope. That’s the lambda. Integrate it from radio waves to gamma rays.
Posted by KickLaBuka

Integrate it as a funcction of what independent variable ?

Mee_n_Mac
First post: 11/18/2006
Last post: 11/26/2008
Total posts: 3433 Replying to:
Nope. That’s the lambda. Integrate it from radio waves to gamma rays.
Posted by KickLaBuka

What do you hope the resulting answer describes ?
—————————————————–
Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,
Ask it to, please for the love of all that’s Holy, STOP !

KickLaBuka
First post: 7/25/2008
Last post: 11/26/2008
Total posts: 160 Replying to:
Integrate it as a funcction of what independent variable ?
Posted by DrRocket

Isn’t it just a graph? the wavelength is the independent variable, and the amplitude is the dependent variable. This input would also change with time. Each time you integrate, it would tell you something special about the right side of the equation.
-KickLaBuka

Kicklabuka 12/10/2008 S12989

Please provide the scientific backing for black holes being supermassive, other than, “we added up the masses and were left short handed, so we added some in the middle to keep Kepler’s Laws valid.”
-KickLaBuka

Derekmcd 12/10/2008 S12989
Here’s an article describing the culmination of 16 years worth of observation:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081209221707.htm
And the associated paper that is rather lengthy and quite detailed far exceeding, “we added up the masses and were left short handed, so we added some in the middle to keep Kepler’s Laws valid.”
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4674

doc_grey 12/10/2008 S12989

Let me guess. They’re not super massive, just really super hyper ultra magnetic?

Lildreamer 12/11/2008 S12989

Another entertaining site for KickLaBuka – I like is Nova from pbs.org…..here’s the link for Monsters of the Milky Way
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blackhole/program.html
Damm I’ve become the killer of threads (again….((heavy sigh))

Mee_and_mac 12/11/2008 S12989
No doubt due to all the oxygen in them that has burned out.

Bearack 12/12/2008 S12989

This should be all the scientific proof you need.

A lost packet 12/12/2008 S12989

Bearack 12/12/2008 S12989
Oooh, that wasn’t was he was talking about?
Derekmcd 12/12/2008 S12989
For the love of all that is holy… please tell me that is photoshoped.

Jim48 12/12/2008 S12989
Okay, as the resident scientist allow me to simplify this for you lay people. By the way, that’s a really, really, really, really, really disgusting photograph of that woman. And they booted me off for two days for posting the lyrics to The Jeffersons tv show? Nonetheless, it would be far easier from now on to stay away from the word “supermassive”. Clarity of formulation in a scientific sine qua non, therefore, perhaps it would be best to refer to these objects as really, really, really, really, really,

really, really massive black holes. How easy was that?

Ufmbutler 12/11/2008 S12989

I really don’t understand certain peoples’ fascination with electricity. Everything has to be electricity with these guys. It’d be like if I started saying my computer is powered by gravity, or I have to go to the store to buy a new gravity bulb, See how ridiculous it sounds when you flip it around?

Kicklabuka 12/13/2008 S12989
I understand your point, but I’m not denying gravity; just like you shouldn’t deny electricity because its effects are seen at every scale. I’m denying that gravity needs to be of a supermassive, hidden variety. It’s not a one or the other. It’s both. Do you see the hypocracy in accepting only the one and not the other, then discounting those who even think about the other?
-KickLaBuka

Ufmbutler 12/13/2008 S12989
You are clearly delusional. People talk about electricity in astronomy ALL THE TIME. They don’t suggest that supermassive black holes are fake because of it because they actually understand it.

Kicklabuka 12/13/2008 S12989
Actually understand it? The math told you it was supermassive. It has to be! Common. Nothing inside a black hole suggests it is supermassive. No measurements isolate supermassiveness as the only possiblility. Now now, why would people talk about electricity in astronomy if it has no place in astronomy? I feel you guys are making a contradiction. How can so many people act so agressively against any dissent from “their” reality? Cause I like my delusions way better than yours. Why do I have to be delusional to have a different opinion?
-KickLaBuka

Ufmbutler 12/14/2008 S12989
Nobody has EVER said electricity doesn’t belong in astronomy. Astronomers understand very well the role electricity plays. It is this EU/electromass psychobabble that has no place in astronomy. What is so hard to believe about supermassive black holes? There are PLENTY of measurements to suggest extremely large black holes at the centers of galaxies. You may not have read them(which doesn’t surprise me), but they are out there.
Manwh0re 12/14/2008 S12989
Choosing a scientific hypothesis or theory (to believe in) shouldn’t be a trivial thing (in my opinion). it shouldn’t be like choosing what brand of computer you use, or your favourite artist, it should be a conviction. You should be persuaded with hard facts and overwhelming relevant data, and give the benefit of the doubt to the majority of very skilled scientists, theoretical physicists and mathematicians that think for a living about these things.
Let’s dig a little deeper here; the people you are dismissing (the virtual cooperative of consenting scientists) are extremely talented in what they do, imagine going to a song contest and trying to sing better then a bunch really talented singers, you would be slaughtered. And that’s what science is all about, except instead of singing they write papers and equations, and instead of getting voted off, other scientists challenge every minute detail. Every little single itty bitty tiny weenie detail.
Let’s have a look at science for a second, what is it? All it is a protocol, its displaying ALL the information available (naked and raw), so you as a fellow scientist can dissect and analyse it in the smallest detail. If you don’t like it, you can submit a body of work where the facts are laid out in a concise and relevant way so other scientists can inversely check and verify your work. The better science wins. Sure this process isn’t perfect, but it works, you actually can’t deny it, everything you do in the modern world is a result of science.
Think of the consequences if scientists picked theories on popularity or inadequate bodies of evidence, you would have creationism instead of evolution, you would have play dough instead of nuclear physics, we may still be living with Aristotles celestial spheres and epicycles.

Drrocket 12/14/2008 S12989
Depending on what you mean by supermassive, black holes have to be supermassive. What they really have to have is extreme mass density in order to form. Of course the math told us they were supermassive. Black holes were discovered by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, based on the general theory of relativity and the mathematics of differentiable manifolds long befoe there was experimental evidence for them — without the mathematics no one would have known to look.
black holes absolutely require extreme mass density, that is what causes them. They can have charge, they can have spin, and then can have a magnetic field, but they cannot form without very high mass density. Black holes are born of general relativity, and general relativity is the theory of gravity.
One doesn’t have to be delusional to have a different opinion — but it sure does help in forming an opinion that is not only based on nothing, but is also contradicted by a HUGE body of empirical data and throughly tested fundamental theories.
Nobody cares if you wish to live in your own little world. But people do care if invalid opinions are interpreted by younger people who are just beginning to learn about science as anything other than the nonsense and waste of time that they in fact are. Anyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not all opinions are worthy of consideration by others. All opinions are NOT created equal.


HomeTimelineBack to Discovery

Comments are closed.