Greetings,
Mankind had always been good at making theories, trying to figure out how our universe works. The way i see it we will NEVER know. Why? Because we are part of it. We are inside. Our body is not different from any other kind of matter, and is an integral part of this universe. We cannot see the whole picture from the inside, and we can never truly understand it on our current level of existence. Don't worry i will not go into some idealistic hotchpotch. But no theory ever (and probably never will, because it simply cannot) will answer the fundamental question: WHY?. I am sure that many of you have thought about the origin of the universe. The big-bang theory is anything but a theory to explain this origin. Do we have any idea on how can all this exist, what and why started it?? All we can do is to build upon axioms. Some connections can only be seen from the "outside". If we could see it all, then every single unexplained, unbelievable, extra-ordenary event/mechanism, simply everything would fit in the picture. That is something we cannot do. There are several dimensions of the universe we cannot "see". Still the question remains unanswered: WHY? It doesn't matter you say? What difference it would make if we would know the truth? To me it would be a BIG difference. Knowledge is never futile. To us it seems that the universe has absolutely no purpose. Humans are infinitely subjective. If you really think about it there is no solid foundation to stand on, there is NOTHING that we can be sure of. All we can do is to believe in a theory. As long as a theory works fine and is constantly proven "right" we utilize it to explane/calculate things, and that suits most of humanity fine.
The most difficult task is to think about the fundamentals.
Adam
The theoretical musings continue.
-
Adam Szendrey
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
- Real name: Adam Szendrey
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Hi Folks:
People keep telling me philosophy is a dead field.
When I look at this post, I'm reminded of a heated discussion of what makes an object an entity and vise versa.
This old chestnut if God is omnipresent and all knowing how can free will arise?
Totally unknowable of course.
A most illuminating illustration is the ptholomy theory.
It was the best of the best 4,000 years ago.
The ptholomy theory is totally an empirical theory based on observation. A few thousand years later the upgraded Ptholomy Theory rev 700 (string theory) is the best of the best...today.
Both a belly laugh for future generations. My best friend told me that this stuff is damn near invisible, I told him we like to call it philosophy / science. ( a Quote ripped from the movie Midway which my buddy and myself can quote verbatum.)
BTW :
The ultimate question has already been answered by Whitehead in the early 30's !
Why?
Because!
It doesn't tell you jack but it is the final answer.
But every human thought starts that way....Why?
Because.... It is everyman's quest to fill in the blanks.
BTW Great posts to read thnx.
Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
People keep telling me philosophy is a dead field.
When I look at this post, I'm reminded of a heated discussion of what makes an object an entity and vise versa.
This old chestnut if God is omnipresent and all knowing how can free will arise?
Totally unknowable of course.
A most illuminating illustration is the ptholomy theory.
It was the best of the best 4,000 years ago.
The ptholomy theory is totally an empirical theory based on observation. A few thousand years later the upgraded Ptholomy Theory rev 700 (string theory) is the best of the best...today.
Both a belly laugh for future generations. My best friend told me that this stuff is damn near invisible, I told him we like to call it philosophy / science. ( a Quote ripped from the movie Midway which my buddy and myself can quote verbatum.)
BTW :
The ultimate question has already been answered by Whitehead in the early 30's !
Why?
Because!
It doesn't tell you jack but it is the final answer.
But every human thought starts that way....Why?
Because.... It is everyman's quest to fill in the blanks.
BTW Great posts to read thnx.
Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
-
guest
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Richard Hull wrote:
> Charge is extant - PERIOD and fact. Electrostatic force is a result of charge interaction and has no existence whatsoever without extant charge. Charge is primal. All charge that we see is associated with matter. Electrostatic force is just the reaction manifested in charged matter.
>
With all due respect, Richard, what separates your statement from theology? I have heard that type of argument in church, but I don't understand why it should be, just because you say so. I thought mathematics was the language of science?
Electrostatic force is caused by Coulomb’s constant. Just look at Coulomb’s law. Coulomb’s constant times charge1 times charge2 divided by the distance between them squared. Coulomb’s constant is not just some arbitrary value and dimensions that just happen to fit the equation. It refers to something real. Perhaps it is non-physical, but it is real nonetheless.
The Coulomb constant exists prior to its interaction with charge. It does not just magically show up when two charges are present.
Have you ever examined Coulomb’s constant closely?
http://www.tshankha.com/gravitational_constant.htm
Both Coulomb’s constant and the gravitational constant share the same structure. And both constants appear to be driven by an incredibly large Gforce, as I call it. What would you call a force that is 1.211 x 10^44 newton and drives every single particle attraction or repulsion throughout the Universe with equal effect?
There is also a third constant, the edts constant, which drives the strong charge just as the Coulomb constant drives the electrostatic charge, and the gravitational constant drives mass.
http://www.tshankha.com/edts_constant.htm
> Force implies motion through a measured distance. It is the classic definition of force. Charge has no force but that another charge exists. When two charges are extant, electrostatic force is then ALLOWED TO EXIST.....and only then. No chicken or the egg here.
>
This is not correct. Force is equal to pressure times area. When force moves a distance, it becomes energy.
> No magnetic field can ever exist without charge in motion either in locked up matter due to magnetic moments arising from the of spinning charged matter particles (permenant magnets) or in free space. All magnetism is secondary and a reaction flowing solely and directly from charge in motion. NO magnetic field in motion can create electrical charge, only move extant charge about. Magnetism can't DO anything primal and is not a primally extant force except in so far as there is charge somewhere in motion.
>
I’m not saying that a magnetic field creates anything. I’m saying the angular momentum of a subatomic particle moving through the conductance of Aether causes strong charge. Strong charge IS magnetism. Actually, it’s electromagnetism. And you are right electromagnetism is not primal. It is caused by angular momentum moving through the Aether. The angular momentum is primal. In fact, I call it primary angular momentum. All matter and energy can be traced back to primary angular momentum.
http://www.tshankha.com/angular_momentum.htm
Strong charge is caused by primary angular momentum, and electrostatic charge is caused by strong charge:
e^2 = e.emax^2 * 8 * pi * a
where e is the elementary (electrostatic) charge, e.emax is the strong charge, and a is the fine structure constant of the electron. The equation above is a unified charge equation and it shows that electrostatic charge is a geometrical alteration of strong charge caused by the curved, half-spin nature of Aether.
> We cannot create charge anytime or anywhere.
I just showed you that we can, when we understand the correct physics.
> We cannot create gravity.
You’re right, gravity comes from the Aether, along with charge attraction/repulsion.
> By the same token we cannot create matter. We and nature CAN create MASS DEFECT. Done all the time in fusion
>
Mass defect is a misnomer. The effect is real, the description of the effect is false. Mass is not defective. The “mass defect” is actually a result of the degree of freedom the subatomic particles have to move within the nucleus.
http://www.tshankha.com/binding_energy.htm
> Gravity is a potential energy. Gravitational force is a resultant of this potential energy acting between to material bodies. There is not such thing as gravitational force without the extant potential energy, gravity itself. The source of gravity is equally unknown as is that of charge. We see both as a property of matter. I have noted that it might be the other way around that matter is a property of the existance of of the these two potential energies at singularly fortuitous points in space.
>
I agree with the view that matter is a property of the gravitational constant. The non-physical gravitational constant, Coulomb constant, and edts constant are all driven by the same enormous Gforce. Nothing in physical matter could ever generate the magnitude of force within these essential constants.
> It is patently ridiculous to speak of gravitational force or electrostatic force without the pre-existing and nascent potential energy entities of charge and gravity. Forces are not primal but the result of potential energy interactions which we observe through material or matter interactions. Matter and its kinematics being the greasy, commonplace expressions of those potential energies we observe. Gravitational force and electrostatic force have no meaning without the pre-exant potential energies to make them known and measurable.
>
You say forces are not primal? You just said gravity was primal. What do you think gravity is? And aside from your personal opinion, there is nothing that could explain how a tiny electron could generate the enormous Gforce that exists within Coulomb’s constant or the gravitational constant. On the contrary, it is absolutely absurd to posit a tiny electron could generate force constants on the magnitude of 10^44 newton.
> As regards the hypothesized strong charge and the measured casimir force..... The strong charge might be absolutely demanded in a THEORY set forth to explain what the Casimir force is, but it is not measurable directly in a laboratory as a separate entity. It is an assumed entity needed to make up a theory around a measured PHYSICAL FORCE.
>
The strong charge IS magnetism, and magnetism IS directly measured in its various manifestations. Strong charge is just as measurable as electrostatic charge. In fact, both are static. The difference between the two charges is in their geometry. Electrostatic charge is spherical in geometry, and strong charge is toroidal in geometry. Have you ever built a Tesla coil? What shape of top capacitance did you find most suitable for the electromagnetic discharge?
(I’ve bought your tapes, so you know I said that tongue in cheek.)
Have you ever built an electrostatic generator? What shape are the top capacitors in an electrostatic generator?
Electromagnetism is driven by the strong charge of the electron. Electrostatics are driven by the electrostatic charge of the electron (and proton.)
> NO ELECTRICAL FORCE MEASUREMENTS WERE DIRECTLY MADE HERE!
>
> The strong charge was precisely and mathematically derived to explain a physical result, NOT an electrical one.
>
What is the difference? Are not electrical phenomenon also physical phenomenon? And what physical particle exists that does not have a charge component?
Dave
> Charge is extant - PERIOD and fact. Electrostatic force is a result of charge interaction and has no existence whatsoever without extant charge. Charge is primal. All charge that we see is associated with matter. Electrostatic force is just the reaction manifested in charged matter.
>
With all due respect, Richard, what separates your statement from theology? I have heard that type of argument in church, but I don't understand why it should be, just because you say so. I thought mathematics was the language of science?
Electrostatic force is caused by Coulomb’s constant. Just look at Coulomb’s law. Coulomb’s constant times charge1 times charge2 divided by the distance between them squared. Coulomb’s constant is not just some arbitrary value and dimensions that just happen to fit the equation. It refers to something real. Perhaps it is non-physical, but it is real nonetheless.
The Coulomb constant exists prior to its interaction with charge. It does not just magically show up when two charges are present.
Have you ever examined Coulomb’s constant closely?
http://www.tshankha.com/gravitational_constant.htm
Both Coulomb’s constant and the gravitational constant share the same structure. And both constants appear to be driven by an incredibly large Gforce, as I call it. What would you call a force that is 1.211 x 10^44 newton and drives every single particle attraction or repulsion throughout the Universe with equal effect?
There is also a third constant, the edts constant, which drives the strong charge just as the Coulomb constant drives the electrostatic charge, and the gravitational constant drives mass.
http://www.tshankha.com/edts_constant.htm
> Force implies motion through a measured distance. It is the classic definition of force. Charge has no force but that another charge exists. When two charges are extant, electrostatic force is then ALLOWED TO EXIST.....and only then. No chicken or the egg here.
>
This is not correct. Force is equal to pressure times area. When force moves a distance, it becomes energy.
> No magnetic field can ever exist without charge in motion either in locked up matter due to magnetic moments arising from the of spinning charged matter particles (permenant magnets) or in free space. All magnetism is secondary and a reaction flowing solely and directly from charge in motion. NO magnetic field in motion can create electrical charge, only move extant charge about. Magnetism can't DO anything primal and is not a primally extant force except in so far as there is charge somewhere in motion.
>
I’m not saying that a magnetic field creates anything. I’m saying the angular momentum of a subatomic particle moving through the conductance of Aether causes strong charge. Strong charge IS magnetism. Actually, it’s electromagnetism. And you are right electromagnetism is not primal. It is caused by angular momentum moving through the Aether. The angular momentum is primal. In fact, I call it primary angular momentum. All matter and energy can be traced back to primary angular momentum.
http://www.tshankha.com/angular_momentum.htm
Strong charge is caused by primary angular momentum, and electrostatic charge is caused by strong charge:
e^2 = e.emax^2 * 8 * pi * a
where e is the elementary (electrostatic) charge, e.emax is the strong charge, and a is the fine structure constant of the electron. The equation above is a unified charge equation and it shows that electrostatic charge is a geometrical alteration of strong charge caused by the curved, half-spin nature of Aether.
> We cannot create charge anytime or anywhere.
I just showed you that we can, when we understand the correct physics.
> We cannot create gravity.
You’re right, gravity comes from the Aether, along with charge attraction/repulsion.
> By the same token we cannot create matter. We and nature CAN create MASS DEFECT. Done all the time in fusion
>
Mass defect is a misnomer. The effect is real, the description of the effect is false. Mass is not defective. The “mass defect” is actually a result of the degree of freedom the subatomic particles have to move within the nucleus.
http://www.tshankha.com/binding_energy.htm
> Gravity is a potential energy. Gravitational force is a resultant of this potential energy acting between to material bodies. There is not such thing as gravitational force without the extant potential energy, gravity itself. The source of gravity is equally unknown as is that of charge. We see both as a property of matter. I have noted that it might be the other way around that matter is a property of the existance of of the these two potential energies at singularly fortuitous points in space.
>
I agree with the view that matter is a property of the gravitational constant. The non-physical gravitational constant, Coulomb constant, and edts constant are all driven by the same enormous Gforce. Nothing in physical matter could ever generate the magnitude of force within these essential constants.
> It is patently ridiculous to speak of gravitational force or electrostatic force without the pre-existing and nascent potential energy entities of charge and gravity. Forces are not primal but the result of potential energy interactions which we observe through material or matter interactions. Matter and its kinematics being the greasy, commonplace expressions of those potential energies we observe. Gravitational force and electrostatic force have no meaning without the pre-exant potential energies to make them known and measurable.
>
You say forces are not primal? You just said gravity was primal. What do you think gravity is? And aside from your personal opinion, there is nothing that could explain how a tiny electron could generate the enormous Gforce that exists within Coulomb’s constant or the gravitational constant. On the contrary, it is absolutely absurd to posit a tiny electron could generate force constants on the magnitude of 10^44 newton.
> As regards the hypothesized strong charge and the measured casimir force..... The strong charge might be absolutely demanded in a THEORY set forth to explain what the Casimir force is, but it is not measurable directly in a laboratory as a separate entity. It is an assumed entity needed to make up a theory around a measured PHYSICAL FORCE.
>
The strong charge IS magnetism, and magnetism IS directly measured in its various manifestations. Strong charge is just as measurable as electrostatic charge. In fact, both are static. The difference between the two charges is in their geometry. Electrostatic charge is spherical in geometry, and strong charge is toroidal in geometry. Have you ever built a Tesla coil? What shape of top capacitance did you find most suitable for the electromagnetic discharge?
(I’ve bought your tapes, so you know I said that tongue in cheek.)
Have you ever built an electrostatic generator? What shape are the top capacitors in an electrostatic generator?
Electromagnetism is driven by the strong charge of the electron. Electrostatics are driven by the electrostatic charge of the electron (and proton.)
> NO ELECTRICAL FORCE MEASUREMENTS WERE DIRECTLY MADE HERE!
>
> The strong charge was precisely and mathematically derived to explain a physical result, NOT an electrical one.
>
What is the difference? Are not electrical phenomenon also physical phenomenon? And what physical particle exists that does not have a charge component?
Dave
-
guest
Re: AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Hi Frank,
Frank S. wrote:
> Which brings up the next point. There CAN be a gravitational field without an electromagnetic field but an electromagnetic field can not exist without a gravitational field. Then we have the equivalence of a bulk property of matter with a fundamental property (gravitational vs. inertial masses). A coincidence that should not be based on empirical science.
>
All subatomic particles have both mass and charge. It is impossible to separate the gravitational and electrical fields or to say you can have one without the other.
Just because charges can be neutralized, does not mean the fields don't exist. The overall field becomes very weak to be sure, but the electrical fields acting upon each subatomic particle remains just as strong as ever.
> As for the empirical form of science being the only true science is just not true. Many of the greatest scientific discoveries were conceived of in the mind first. Only afterwards were experiments designed to test the theories. Relativity, fundamental charge, photoelectric effect, and on and on and on.
>
I agree with you here. Science is not exclusively one process. It is the blending of several processes in the pursuit of the truth. The goal is truth, and all means that help us to arrive at the truth are science. ...Even lucky guesses count (assumptions), just as long as the guess is eventually borne out by data and equations.
Dave
Frank S. wrote:
> Which brings up the next point. There CAN be a gravitational field without an electromagnetic field but an electromagnetic field can not exist without a gravitational field. Then we have the equivalence of a bulk property of matter with a fundamental property (gravitational vs. inertial masses). A coincidence that should not be based on empirical science.
>
All subatomic particles have both mass and charge. It is impossible to separate the gravitational and electrical fields or to say you can have one without the other.
Just because charges can be neutralized, does not mean the fields don't exist. The overall field becomes very weak to be sure, but the electrical fields acting upon each subatomic particle remains just as strong as ever.
> As for the empirical form of science being the only true science is just not true. Many of the greatest scientific discoveries were conceived of in the mind first. Only afterwards were experiments designed to test the theories. Relativity, fundamental charge, photoelectric effect, and on and on and on.
>
I agree with you here. Science is not exclusively one process. It is the blending of several processes in the pursuit of the truth. The goal is truth, and all means that help us to arrive at the truth are science. ...Even lucky guesses count (assumptions), just as long as the guess is eventually borne out by data and equations.
Dave
-
guest
Re: AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Richard Hull wrote:
> I have always held that charge, magnetism and electromagnetic fields are all totally separate, totally unrelated to and not interdependant on anything gravitational. Gravityis a separate and unrelated phenomena to anything electromagnetic. There is no scientific link between the two or a grand unification would have been a snap.
>
It is a snap, when you see charge properly...
http://www.tshankha.com/unified_charge_theory.htm
Dave
> I have always held that charge, magnetism and electromagnetic fields are all totally separate, totally unrelated to and not interdependant on anything gravitational. Gravityis a separate and unrelated phenomena to anything electromagnetic. There is no scientific link between the two or a grand unification would have been a snap.
>
It is a snap, when you see charge properly...
http://www.tshankha.com/unified_charge_theory.htm
Dave
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15024
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
It is obvious each of us has their own beliefs based on opinion, best guess, what we have read, mathematical musings, empirical observation or just blind faith. To each his own.
I am never out to discover the why of all things, but only to see connections that are obvious and in my mind disgard superfluous material (of which there is plenty). This need extend no deeper for me that observations derived from simple experiment. Thought experiments even backed by mathematics are never more than just that for me. A solid, well tested theory for me does not a reality make.
Ricahrd Hull
I am never out to discover the why of all things, but only to see connections that are obvious and in my mind disgard superfluous material (of which there is plenty). This need extend no deeper for me that observations derived from simple experiment. Thought experiments even backed by mathematics are never more than just that for me. A solid, well tested theory for me does not a reality make.
Ricahrd Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Richard Hester
- Posts: 1519
- Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 12:07 am
- Real name:
Re: AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.
You can rename the particles anyway you like, call them colored or charmed or any other scientific doublespeak, when an electron and positron annihilate, charges go away, though the overall charge balance of the universe is unaffected. This must say something fundamental about the nature of charge. Nobody is playing fast and loose with anything.
-
Adam Szendrey
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
- Real name: Adam Szendrey
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Hello Larry!
I guess the wise answer IS "Because". And i know that the little piece of philosophy i've posted is a very old one. My purpose was simply to write my thoughts down. I guess the "older" folks (above 30) here all have gone through a phase in their life when they just could not stop thinking about these issues. I am amazed by this universe, by how it works and the fact that it works. Just by looking at a cloud, seeing the stars at night, or seeing the fusor work. I just cannot stopmyself to pause and think: Why...even if the answer is simply "because" i am still puzzled. This is curiosity, "filling the blanks".
And thinking is a wonderous trip to understading...or to mental breakdown
.
Adam
I guess the wise answer IS "Because". And i know that the little piece of philosophy i've posted is a very old one. My purpose was simply to write my thoughts down. I guess the "older" folks (above 30) here all have gone through a phase in their life when they just could not stop thinking about these issues. I am amazed by this universe, by how it works and the fact that it works. Just by looking at a cloud, seeing the stars at night, or seeing the fusor work. I just cannot stopmyself to pause and think: Why...even if the answer is simply "because" i am still puzzled. This is curiosity, "filling the blanks".
And thinking is a wonderous trip to understading...or to mental breakdown
.Adam
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Im taking a history course at my university. One of the interesting things we've learned is the deviation from "why" to "how" in modern times. You can look at it like this:
Greeks: rock falls because rock has earth in it. Earth wants to "be" together, so rock falls.
Renaissance thinkers: Rock falls with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.
Note the progression from why things are, which is a philosophical question, to how, which seeks only to describe the way it is. This was one of the breakthroughs for Galileo and Newton who did not know why the rock fell. Only that it did, and we can desrcribe the motion. Newton provides no mechanism to explain what gravity is, just that it is. Hence the law of universal gravitation, not the theory.
This how system has brought about all the great theories of modern age. Note that no philosophy is involved, only observation. Any theory based on observation is bound to work out well.
Greeks: rock falls because rock has earth in it. Earth wants to "be" together, so rock falls.
Renaissance thinkers: Rock falls with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.
Note the progression from why things are, which is a philosophical question, to how, which seeks only to describe the way it is. This was one of the breakthroughs for Galileo and Newton who did not know why the rock fell. Only that it did, and we can desrcribe the motion. Newton provides no mechanism to explain what gravity is, just that it is. Hence the law of universal gravitation, not the theory.
This how system has brought about all the great theories of modern age. Note that no philosophy is involved, only observation. Any theory based on observation is bound to work out well.
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
"Electrostatic force is caused by Coulomb’s constant"
No, coulombs constant was derived to explain the force. electromagnetic forces all derive from charges.
"Electrostatic charge is spherical in geometry, and strong charge is toroidal in geometry. Have you ever built a Tesla coil? What shape of top capacitance did you find most suitable for the electromagnetic discharge?"
I hate analogies when used with physics. They simply dont work. This is a beautiful example of an analogy that does not work the slightest bit. What does the shape of a testla coil have anythign to do with the fundamental geometry of charge? Nothing. Secondly, saying there is a fundamental geometry of charge is getting into philosopy. Thats like saying that electrons are cubes. Nobody has ever directly observed the shape of the electron, and never will, so saying this is stupid as there is no proof.
"The Coulomb constant exists prior to its interaction with charge. It does not just magically show up when two charges are present."
The coulomb constant is a fundamental property of nature. Thats just the way things are, period. It is not caused by anything. And it does not exist, it is simply something we made up to describe electromagnetic forces effectively.
No, coulombs constant was derived to explain the force. electromagnetic forces all derive from charges.
"Electrostatic charge is spherical in geometry, and strong charge is toroidal in geometry. Have you ever built a Tesla coil? What shape of top capacitance did you find most suitable for the electromagnetic discharge?"
I hate analogies when used with physics. They simply dont work. This is a beautiful example of an analogy that does not work the slightest bit. What does the shape of a testla coil have anythign to do with the fundamental geometry of charge? Nothing. Secondly, saying there is a fundamental geometry of charge is getting into philosopy. Thats like saying that electrons are cubes. Nobody has ever directly observed the shape of the electron, and never will, so saying this is stupid as there is no proof.
"The Coulomb constant exists prior to its interaction with charge. It does not just magically show up when two charges are present."
The coulomb constant is a fundamental property of nature. Thats just the way things are, period. It is not caused by anything. And it does not exist, it is simply something we made up to describe electromagnetic forces effectively.
-
Richard Hull
- Moderator
- Posts: 15024
- Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 9:44 am
- Real name: Richard Hull
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Thanks Greg for your two posts, I got busy today. Constants are pretty much hole fillers related to the way things are, based on specific conditions of the experiment, as you note. Charges aren't there because of, or ruled by, the constant. The constant flows from observations based on interactions of charged matter within the universe. Which, again, is about what you said. The constant in the coulomb equation pretty much relates to the medium the charges are acting within. (dielectric constant for the most part.) For an idealized theoretical vacuum it becomes one and the constant, effectively goes away.
For Adam.... I am amazed at the universe as well, and after having been through about a thousand iterations of my take on it realize that I nor anyone will live so long as to get any REAL answers. This doesn't mean the questions die or the cogitating ends either. At nearly 60 my brain still grinds away on this stuff. I am sure there will never be an understanding of the reality of it all for mankind, just as I am sure that there WILL BE a "theory of everything" which will be wrong. There are too many people who are too sure that they are a hair's breadth away from it right now! With this flow and ground swell, they will surely convince themselves of a result sooner than later. All left behind or not joining the club will be pitied if ignorant or shunned if informed.
Richard Hull
For Adam.... I am amazed at the universe as well, and after having been through about a thousand iterations of my take on it realize that I nor anyone will live so long as to get any REAL answers. This doesn't mean the questions die or the cogitating ends either. At nearly 60 my brain still grinds away on this stuff. I am sure there will never be an understanding of the reality of it all for mankind, just as I am sure that there WILL BE a "theory of everything" which will be wrong. There are too many people who are too sure that they are a hair's breadth away from it right now! With this flow and ground swell, they will surely convince themselves of a result sooner than later. All left behind or not joining the club will be pitied if ignorant or shunned if informed.
Richard Hull
Progress may have been a good thing once, but it just went on too long. - Yogi Berra
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
Fusion is the energy of the future....and it always will be
The more complex the idea put forward by the poor amateur, the more likely it will never see embodiment
-
Frank Sanns
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2123
- Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 2:26 pm
- Real name: Frank Sanns
Re: AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.
If you ask a chemist if matter can be created or destroyed, he will say no because if you burn something and collect and weigh all of the ashes and gasses that evolve, you will get them all back. Well almost. There is a very, very tiny difference because some of the matter is converted to energy. The change is so tiny that it is appropriately neglected in chemistry. This is the conservation of MASS. In high energy physics, mass is often converted into energy and sometimes vice versa. So MASS ENERGY is conserved.
Charge is just like this. Charge must always be conserved but there is a vast difference between saying that INDIVIDUAL CHARGE is conserved and CHARGE is conserved. A chemist would say that you must maintain the same number of positive and negative charges to maintain neutrality. A bunch of positive charges need a bunch of negative charges to neutralize them. They may or not be together now or anytime in the future but the charges exist. This is NOT the same as 2 charges annihalating each other to form photons (gamma rays). CHARGE is conserved but this time it has changed like MASS changes to ENERGY. In this case the charges now fail to exist as mass fails to exist once converted into energy.
Frank S.
Charge is just like this. Charge must always be conserved but there is a vast difference between saying that INDIVIDUAL CHARGE is conserved and CHARGE is conserved. A chemist would say that you must maintain the same number of positive and negative charges to maintain neutrality. A bunch of positive charges need a bunch of negative charges to neutralize them. They may or not be together now or anytime in the future but the charges exist. This is NOT the same as 2 charges annihalating each other to form photons (gamma rays). CHARGE is conserved but this time it has changed like MASS changes to ENERGY. In this case the charges now fail to exist as mass fails to exist once converted into energy.
Frank S.
Achiever's madness; when enough is still not enough. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
We have to stop looking at the world through our physical eyes. The universe is NOT what we see. It is the quantum world that is real. The rest is just an electron illusion. ---FS
-
guest
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Hi Greg,
I know you're just repeating what you've been told by others, so I don't take your view as a personal attack. But I do need to point out a couple things...
Greg Rogers wrote:
> "Electrostatic force is caused by Coulomb’s constant"
>
> No, coulombs constant was derived to explain the force. electromagnetic forces all derive from charges.
>
This is the arrogance of science. Scientists believe they have made up Coulomb's constant. They think they invented it. If you really take the time to investigate the logic of what you have repeated from textbooks you will see it is pure folly.
In order for a law of charge to work, the law has to be real to begin with. This is not something modern physics has the power to create in their labs. Neither do theorists have the ability to pull numbers and dimensions out of thin air and make them accurately describe reality.
Coulomb's constant was *discovered*, not just *derived*. Mathematics are a property of reality, not the mind of a scientist. A scientist can only reveal what is real, he or she cannot make fundamental laws, or will them into reality.
> "Electrostatic charge is spherical in geometry, and strong charge is toroidal in geometry. Have you ever built a Tesla coil? What shape of top capacitance did you find most suitable for the electromagnetic discharge?"
>
> I hate analogies when used with physics. They simply dont work.
>
Well, in this case it is not an analogy. It is a mathematical observation of reality. Electrostatic charge can be mathematically proven to be spherical in shape and electromagnetic charge can be mathematically proven to be toroidal in shape.
> What does the shape of a testla coil have anythign to do with the fundamental geometry of charge?
>
Everything. Try using a flat metal plate for a top capacitance, instead of a spun aluminum toroid, and see what happens to your performance. If the shape of the top capacitance had nothing to do with charge, and yet the same capacitance were maintained, the performance wouldn't change at all. But because charge does have a shape, the output of a top capacitance (antenna) is influenced by the top capacitance's geometry.
> Secondly, saying there is a fundamental geometry of charge is getting into philosopy.
>
No, it's pure science. My statement is backed up 100% by mathematics and physical observations.
> Thats like saying that electrons are cubes. Nobody has ever directly observed the shape of the electron, and never will, so saying this is stupid as there is no proof.
>
Pretending you have knowledge of things you don't, in order to make a convincing argument, does not make your argument convincing. Prove the mathematics for a cubic electron.
One doesn't have to look directly at subatomic matter to see its shape. Since we are talking about quantum reality, where each individual subatomic particle is exactly like every other similar particle, we can observe subatomic characteristics in larger systems. If you can get more electrons on to toroidal surface than you can on a flat plane surface of equal capacitance or surface area, then you are observing the effect of electron geometry.
> "The Coulomb constant exists prior to its interaction with charge. It does not just magically show up when two charges are present."
>
> The coulomb constant is a fundamental property of nature. Thats just the way things are, period. It is not caused by anything. And it does not exist, it is simply something we made up to describe electromagnetic forces effectively.
>
I don't subscribe to fantasy. If something exists, it's not because, "that's just the way things are, period." If something exists, it is that way due to a cause. And it is the work of science to identify those causes. I have identified a super structure of constants within the Aether. This super structure IS the Aether. These constants are non-physical properties of something real that truly do affect physical matter. Coulomb's constant, the gravitational constant, permeability, permittivity, and the speed of light are real properties of a real, non-physical entity.
This isn't what you were taught, I admit, but the mathematics clearly show there is structure in the non-physical Aether. And this structure is what contributes to the geometry of angular momentum and charge, and even space and time.
Look, I'm not trying to force anything on you. If you don't want to hear an alternative explanation of physics that might lead you to new perspective that could lead to new discoveries, then I won't bother you. I have nothing to gain by sharing my discoveries.
You can take your dead-end research and continue to run up against brick walls if you choose. Let's face it, if the Standard Model of physics worked, you wouldn't be trying to push the limit in physics with your fusors. It would have already been done in a commercial lab and everybody would buy a computerized fusor at Wal-mart for $199.
The reason you are doing reseach on this group is because you believe there is something, yet undiscovered in physics, that you would like to discover. What if the only thing holding you back is the physics you have so much faith in, the physics that says charge has no geometry and Coulomb's constant is just a derived number that happens to work, what if that physics were wrong? How much more money and time would you need to burn before you decided to question the physics?
That's exactly where I was when I was experimenting with Tesla's flat spiral - solenoid combination secondary coils. It was then that I realized there was more to physics than what was known in the Standard Model. That's when I decided to re-investigate the physics, starting from the fundamental constants and working up. And that is when I discovered the Standard Model is incomplete and based on several significant, and incorrect assumptions.
One of the most important errors made in the Standard Model is the incorrect dimensions attributed to charge. Charge is not single dimensional, like mass. Charge is distributed. You can see that by analyzing all the instances in which charge is observed. And it turns out that if charge is distributed, it has to have a geometry, which it does, and which is easily mathematically discovered from known fundamental observations of subatomic particles.
The proof of the observation that all charge is distributed is found in the incredibly symmetrical, simple, and perfectly accurate Unified Charge Equations. These equations arise from distributed charge and cannot arise from single dimension charge. The Unified Charge Equations ARE the long sought Unified Field Theory.
Now, if the observation that charge is distributed, and that distribution produces a specific geometry, and that geometry produces the Unified Charge Equations, and those equations give us our long sought Unified Field Theory, then don't you think that maybe I *might* be right? Don't you think it is worth looking into, rather than knocking my theory down just because it doesn't agree with the ignorance of the Standard Model?
Dave
I know you're just repeating what you've been told by others, so I don't take your view as a personal attack. But I do need to point out a couple things...
Greg Rogers wrote:
> "Electrostatic force is caused by Coulomb’s constant"
>
> No, coulombs constant was derived to explain the force. electromagnetic forces all derive from charges.
>
This is the arrogance of science. Scientists believe they have made up Coulomb's constant. They think they invented it. If you really take the time to investigate the logic of what you have repeated from textbooks you will see it is pure folly.
In order for a law of charge to work, the law has to be real to begin with. This is not something modern physics has the power to create in their labs. Neither do theorists have the ability to pull numbers and dimensions out of thin air and make them accurately describe reality.
Coulomb's constant was *discovered*, not just *derived*. Mathematics are a property of reality, not the mind of a scientist. A scientist can only reveal what is real, he or she cannot make fundamental laws, or will them into reality.
> "Electrostatic charge is spherical in geometry, and strong charge is toroidal in geometry. Have you ever built a Tesla coil? What shape of top capacitance did you find most suitable for the electromagnetic discharge?"
>
> I hate analogies when used with physics. They simply dont work.
>
Well, in this case it is not an analogy. It is a mathematical observation of reality. Electrostatic charge can be mathematically proven to be spherical in shape and electromagnetic charge can be mathematically proven to be toroidal in shape.
> What does the shape of a testla coil have anythign to do with the fundamental geometry of charge?
>
Everything. Try using a flat metal plate for a top capacitance, instead of a spun aluminum toroid, and see what happens to your performance. If the shape of the top capacitance had nothing to do with charge, and yet the same capacitance were maintained, the performance wouldn't change at all. But because charge does have a shape, the output of a top capacitance (antenna) is influenced by the top capacitance's geometry.
> Secondly, saying there is a fundamental geometry of charge is getting into philosopy.
>
No, it's pure science. My statement is backed up 100% by mathematics and physical observations.
> Thats like saying that electrons are cubes. Nobody has ever directly observed the shape of the electron, and never will, so saying this is stupid as there is no proof.
>
Pretending you have knowledge of things you don't, in order to make a convincing argument, does not make your argument convincing. Prove the mathematics for a cubic electron.
One doesn't have to look directly at subatomic matter to see its shape. Since we are talking about quantum reality, where each individual subatomic particle is exactly like every other similar particle, we can observe subatomic characteristics in larger systems. If you can get more electrons on to toroidal surface than you can on a flat plane surface of equal capacitance or surface area, then you are observing the effect of electron geometry.
> "The Coulomb constant exists prior to its interaction with charge. It does not just magically show up when two charges are present."
>
> The coulomb constant is a fundamental property of nature. Thats just the way things are, period. It is not caused by anything. And it does not exist, it is simply something we made up to describe electromagnetic forces effectively.
>
I don't subscribe to fantasy. If something exists, it's not because, "that's just the way things are, period." If something exists, it is that way due to a cause. And it is the work of science to identify those causes. I have identified a super structure of constants within the Aether. This super structure IS the Aether. These constants are non-physical properties of something real that truly do affect physical matter. Coulomb's constant, the gravitational constant, permeability, permittivity, and the speed of light are real properties of a real, non-physical entity.
This isn't what you were taught, I admit, but the mathematics clearly show there is structure in the non-physical Aether. And this structure is what contributes to the geometry of angular momentum and charge, and even space and time.
Look, I'm not trying to force anything on you. If you don't want to hear an alternative explanation of physics that might lead you to new perspective that could lead to new discoveries, then I won't bother you. I have nothing to gain by sharing my discoveries.
You can take your dead-end research and continue to run up against brick walls if you choose. Let's face it, if the Standard Model of physics worked, you wouldn't be trying to push the limit in physics with your fusors. It would have already been done in a commercial lab and everybody would buy a computerized fusor at Wal-mart for $199.
The reason you are doing reseach on this group is because you believe there is something, yet undiscovered in physics, that you would like to discover. What if the only thing holding you back is the physics you have so much faith in, the physics that says charge has no geometry and Coulomb's constant is just a derived number that happens to work, what if that physics were wrong? How much more money and time would you need to burn before you decided to question the physics?
That's exactly where I was when I was experimenting with Tesla's flat spiral - solenoid combination secondary coils. It was then that I realized there was more to physics than what was known in the Standard Model. That's when I decided to re-investigate the physics, starting from the fundamental constants and working up. And that is when I discovered the Standard Model is incomplete and based on several significant, and incorrect assumptions.
One of the most important errors made in the Standard Model is the incorrect dimensions attributed to charge. Charge is not single dimensional, like mass. Charge is distributed. You can see that by analyzing all the instances in which charge is observed. And it turns out that if charge is distributed, it has to have a geometry, which it does, and which is easily mathematically discovered from known fundamental observations of subatomic particles.
The proof of the observation that all charge is distributed is found in the incredibly symmetrical, simple, and perfectly accurate Unified Charge Equations. These equations arise from distributed charge and cannot arise from single dimension charge. The Unified Charge Equations ARE the long sought Unified Field Theory.
Now, if the observation that charge is distributed, and that distribution produces a specific geometry, and that geometry produces the Unified Charge Equations, and those equations give us our long sought Unified Field Theory, then don't you think that maybe I *might* be right? Don't you think it is worth looking into, rather than knocking my theory down just because it doesn't agree with the ignorance of the Standard Model?
Dave
-
Adam Szendrey
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
- Real name: Adam Szendrey
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Greg, maybe it's just me, but i think analogies are good and usefull. The way i see it the universe is like a fractal..infact it is. We just separate things to better understand and because we cannot describe nor understand them as one. Everything is connected to everything this is clear, and nothing is different from the rest. I cannot really explain this, sorry, and i know that this is not science , it is rather philosophy, a thought.
Adam
Adam
-
davidtrimmell
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 5:37 pm
- Real name:
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Hi all. This has been a fascinating thread to follow; I love these types of discussions. I personally believe humans will never understand the "how’s" of the universe, beyond our limited perspective. Much less understand the "whys", that’s for philosophers. I think Murray Gell-Man put it in perspective:
"It is the most persistent and greatest adventure in human history, this search to understand the universe, how it works and where it came from. It is difficult to imagine that a handful of residents of a small planet circling an insignificant star in a small galaxy have as their aim a complete understanding of the whole universe, a small speck or creation truly believing it is capable of comprehending the whole."
Regarding those chasing the Zero Point Energy fantasies, eventually they will recognize their own tails.
David Trimmell
"It is the most persistent and greatest adventure in human history, this search to understand the universe, how it works and where it came from. It is difficult to imagine that a handful of residents of a small planet circling an insignificant star in a small galaxy have as their aim a complete understanding of the whole universe, a small speck or creation truly believing it is capable of comprehending the whole."
Regarding those chasing the Zero Point Energy fantasies, eventually they will recognize their own tails.
David Trimmell
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
"Coulomb's constant was *discovered*, not just *derived*. Mathematics are a property of reality, not the mind of a scientist. A scientist can only reveal what is real, he or she cannot make fundamental laws, or will them into reality."
Yes, thats exactly what I was trying to say, I like the way you put it.
"Everything. Try using a flat metal plate for a top capacitance, instead of a spun aluminum toroid, and see what happens to your performance. If the shape of the top capacitance had nothing to do with charge, and yet the same capacitance were maintained, the performance wouldn't change at all. But because charge does have a shape, the output of a top capacitance (antenna) is influenced by the top capacitance's geometry. "
The top load of a tesla coil has many interrelated factors that affect its performance. All of them can be explained with conventional physics. I dont really understand how you can explain a complex macro phenomenon with something is simple as your explanation of fundemental shpae of charge. If maybe you explained it more fully, I would understand better. But it seems to me like the two have absolutely nothing in common.
"If you can get more electrons on to toroidal surface than you can on a flat plane surface of equal capacitance or surface area, then you are observing the effect of electron geometry."
Not necessarily true. The electrons geometry is not the same as the way the electron interacts. The way the electron interacts is why it behaves a certain way, not because it is shaped a certain way.
"then don't you think that maybe I *might* be right? Don't you think it is worth looking into, rather than knocking my theory down just because it doesn't agree with the ignorance of the Standard Model?"
I'm not trying to knock your theory. But you have to make a theory complete in order to make it useful. This is something you have not done to the best of my knowledge. Yeah, you might be right, but you have to convince us first First explain lots of physical phenomenon that we currently understand by means of conventional physics, by means of your theory, that way we can see how it works in practice. It loks like you are on your way to trying to do this though. Our physics has served us well and continues to, so a new theory would have to be incredibly good to change to it.
Also, if you want to add credibilty to your theory - do not post something like this on your web site. "The practical application of this "Unified Charge Theory" is a binding energy formula for the nucleus of all atoms and a method for extracting Zero Point Energy from the electron via the Casimir effect"
Saying something like that will make nobody believe anything you say and lump you in with crackpots even if you arent one. Even mentioning Zero Point Energy sets off the pseudoscience alarms. Doing so would violate one of the most basic laws- conservation of energy. Yes, the casimir effect is real, but there is no way to extract energy from it. And the cause for the casimir effect is explained simply with quantum mechanics.
Yes, thats exactly what I was trying to say, I like the way you put it.
"Everything. Try using a flat metal plate for a top capacitance, instead of a spun aluminum toroid, and see what happens to your performance. If the shape of the top capacitance had nothing to do with charge, and yet the same capacitance were maintained, the performance wouldn't change at all. But because charge does have a shape, the output of a top capacitance (antenna) is influenced by the top capacitance's geometry. "
The top load of a tesla coil has many interrelated factors that affect its performance. All of them can be explained with conventional physics. I dont really understand how you can explain a complex macro phenomenon with something is simple as your explanation of fundemental shpae of charge. If maybe you explained it more fully, I would understand better. But it seems to me like the two have absolutely nothing in common.
"If you can get more electrons on to toroidal surface than you can on a flat plane surface of equal capacitance or surface area, then you are observing the effect of electron geometry."
Not necessarily true. The electrons geometry is not the same as the way the electron interacts. The way the electron interacts is why it behaves a certain way, not because it is shaped a certain way.
"then don't you think that maybe I *might* be right? Don't you think it is worth looking into, rather than knocking my theory down just because it doesn't agree with the ignorance of the Standard Model?"
I'm not trying to knock your theory. But you have to make a theory complete in order to make it useful. This is something you have not done to the best of my knowledge. Yeah, you might be right, but you have to convince us first
First explain lots of physical phenomenon that we currently understand by means of conventional physics, by means of your theory, that way we can see how it works in practice. It loks like you are on your way to trying to do this though. Our physics has served us well and continues to, so a new theory would have to be incredibly good to change to it.Also, if you want to add credibilty to your theory - do not post something like this on your web site. "The practical application of this "Unified Charge Theory" is a binding energy formula for the nucleus of all atoms and a method for extracting Zero Point Energy from the electron via the Casimir effect"
Saying something like that will make nobody believe anything you say and lump you in with crackpots even if you arent one. Even mentioning Zero Point Energy sets off the pseudoscience alarms. Doing so would violate one of the most basic laws- conservation of energy. Yes, the casimir effect is real, but there is no way to extract energy from it. And the cause for the casimir effect is explained simply with quantum mechanics.
-
Adam Szendrey
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:36 pm
- Real name: Adam Szendrey
- Location: Budapest, Hungary
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Hi Anthony!
I found a really long article on the speed of gravity. It concludes that this speed is 2x10e10c .I did not read itt yet since it is very long, but i will when i find the time (remember that my native language is not english ).And i also found one that says this speed is equal to c, "proven" by an experiment.
The first link: http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
The second:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030106/030106-8.html
Adam
I found a really long article on the speed of gravity. It concludes that this speed is 2x10e10c .I did not read itt yet since it is very long, but i will when i find the time (remember that my native language is not english
).And i also found one that says this speed is equal to c, "proven" by an experiment.The first link: http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html
The second:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/030106/030106-8.html
Adam
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Okay, I dont hate all analogies. But most of them are used to connect two superficially similar things that have no actual similarities. They may look similar, but are actually described and explained by two completely seperate explanations using different rules. Used in this way it is pointless to use analogies, since it does not follow to relate the two.
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Hi Adam:
I find the quest for knowlege and the "doable" quite stimulating!
I have labored long and hard at the wheel of discovery.
Am I discouraged ?
Not one little bit.
After a while the ethic of science becomes like breath of oxygen.
I still love the way and not the why....but I still love looking at the stars above. But I have tred both worlds with confidence of experience.
Don't think I can't still learn stuff @ the half century mark.
Every day at fusion is a battle to be fought.
I don't dispute the process but I simply want folks to know that it wasn't always that way.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
I find the quest for knowlege and the "doable" quite stimulating!
I have labored long and hard at the wheel of discovery.
Am I discouraged ?
Not one little bit.
After a while the ethic of science becomes like breath of oxygen.
I still love the way and not the why....but I still love looking at the stars above. But I have tred both worlds with confidence of experience.
Don't think I can't still learn stuff @ the half century mark.
Every day at fusion is a battle to be fought.
I don't dispute the process but I simply want folks to know that it wasn't always that way.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
Happy Fusoring!
Larry Leins
Fusor Tech
-
guest
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
Hi Greg,
> "then don't you think that maybe I *might* be right? Don't you think it is worth looking into, rather than knocking my theory down just because it doesn't agree with the ignorance of the Standard Model?"
>
> I'm not trying to knock your theory. But you have to make a theory complete in order to make it useful. This is something you have not done to the best of my knowledge. Yeah, you might be right, but you have to convince us first First explain lots of physical phenomenon that we currently understand by means of conventional physics, by means of your theory, that way we can see how it works in practice. It looks like you are on your way to trying to do this though. Our physics has served us well and continues to, so a new theory would have to be incredibly good to change to it.
>
You are correct, I have not given a full course in physics on this list. I haven’t been invited to do that, either. But you can read a lot of my ideas and explanations on my web site, which you have apparently begun to do. I would gladly explain anything about my theory in greater detail if the web site is not clear enough.
> Also, if you want to add credibilty to your theory - do not post something like this on your web site. "The practical application of this "Unified Charge Theory" is a binding energy formula for the nucleus of all atoms and a method for extracting Zero Point Energy from the electron via the Casimir effect"
>
> Saying something like that will make nobody believe anything you say and lump you in with crackpots even if you arent one. Even mentioning Zero Point Energy sets off the pseudoscience alarms. Doing so would violate one of the most basic laws- conservation of energy. Yes, the casimir effect is real, but there is no way to extract energy from it. And the cause for the casimir effect is explained simply with quantum mechanics.
>
Science is not about politics. When scientists have to form their opinions around what others expect to hear, then it is no longer science.
I do have an electron binding energy equation for the 1s orbitals…
http://www.tshankha.com/electron_binding_energies.htm
I have also been working on a nuclear binding energy equation…
http://www.tshankha.com/binding_energy.htm
The Casimir effect is not explained “simply” with QM. It is explained rather technically, and it is not a very good explanation. My theory, based on the strong charge of the subatomic particles, is much simpler. And for you to say there is no way to extract energy from the Casimir effect is pretty bold. I presented a mathematical explanation of how the energy could be extracted. I am presently in communication with experts in the field who are obtaining the materials I need to build a device that could test the theory.
At the very least you should wait until experiments, based on my treatment of the Casimir effect, have been attempted before making claim that it can’t work. You know what it feels like when people tell you it is impossible to produce fusion in your garage, even when you are already doing it.
Don’t forget that Einstein was considered a crackpot when he first presented his theories. Tesla was told by his professor that his rotating magnetic field motor was a perpetual motion device and therefore wasn’t possible. The Wright Brothers had been flying for two years and were still called crackpots by some for claiming to fly.
I’ve noticed that a lot of people in science have been bullied into calling people crackpots for coming up with new theories, lest they be called crackpots themselves for believing in the new theories.
Let the pseudoscience bells ring. Several PhD level physicists have already tried to find fault in my theory, but none has so far. The mathematics is perfectly correct in both its values and its dimensions. The theory agrees completely with experimental evidence.
Now you asked me to explain something that the present physics does not. I have already explained a mathematically correct unified field theory that identifies the exact carrier of the strong force. I have provided the most advanced electron binding energy equation known to science. I have also provided a good explanation for neutron beta decay, based on simple dimensional math. In fact, all my theory is based on simple, dimensional math.
In addition to these things the Standard Model does not adequately explain, my theory also explains much of the known phenomena. I’m not saying that I have examined every area of physics, because I haven’t. But each day I incorporate more explanations in my theory. Today, I learned a possible quantum explanation for the Hubble constant. What’s more, this explanation for the Hubble constant is consistent with the apparent production of ZPE.
BTW, ZPE is not getting something for nothing. The energy from ZPE is produced directly from the magnetic moment of the electron, which is perfectly elastic. The energy comes from something, but what this something is, hasn’t been investigated enough to fully understand.
Dave
> "then don't you think that maybe I *might* be right? Don't you think it is worth looking into, rather than knocking my theory down just because it doesn't agree with the ignorance of the Standard Model?"
>
> I'm not trying to knock your theory. But you have to make a theory complete in order to make it useful. This is something you have not done to the best of my knowledge. Yeah, you might be right, but you have to convince us first
First explain lots of physical phenomenon that we currently understand by means of conventional physics, by means of your theory, that way we can see how it works in practice. It looks like you are on your way to trying to do this though. Our physics has served us well and continues to, so a new theory would have to be incredibly good to change to it.>
You are correct, I have not given a full course in physics on this list. I haven’t been invited to do that, either. But you can read a lot of my ideas and explanations on my web site, which you have apparently begun to do. I would gladly explain anything about my theory in greater detail if the web site is not clear enough.
> Also, if you want to add credibilty to your theory - do not post something like this on your web site. "The practical application of this "Unified Charge Theory" is a binding energy formula for the nucleus of all atoms and a method for extracting Zero Point Energy from the electron via the Casimir effect"
>
> Saying something like that will make nobody believe anything you say and lump you in with crackpots even if you arent one. Even mentioning Zero Point Energy sets off the pseudoscience alarms. Doing so would violate one of the most basic laws- conservation of energy. Yes, the casimir effect is real, but there is no way to extract energy from it. And the cause for the casimir effect is explained simply with quantum mechanics.
>
Science is not about politics. When scientists have to form their opinions around what others expect to hear, then it is no longer science.
I do have an electron binding energy equation for the 1s orbitals…
http://www.tshankha.com/electron_binding_energies.htm
I have also been working on a nuclear binding energy equation…
http://www.tshankha.com/binding_energy.htm
The Casimir effect is not explained “simply” with QM. It is explained rather technically, and it is not a very good explanation. My theory, based on the strong charge of the subatomic particles, is much simpler. And for you to say there is no way to extract energy from the Casimir effect is pretty bold. I presented a mathematical explanation of how the energy could be extracted. I am presently in communication with experts in the field who are obtaining the materials I need to build a device that could test the theory.
At the very least you should wait until experiments, based on my treatment of the Casimir effect, have been attempted before making claim that it can’t work. You know what it feels like when people tell you it is impossible to produce fusion in your garage, even when you are already doing it.
Don’t forget that Einstein was considered a crackpot when he first presented his theories. Tesla was told by his professor that his rotating magnetic field motor was a perpetual motion device and therefore wasn’t possible. The Wright Brothers had been flying for two years and were still called crackpots by some for claiming to fly.
I’ve noticed that a lot of people in science have been bullied into calling people crackpots for coming up with new theories, lest they be called crackpots themselves for believing in the new theories.
Let the pseudoscience bells ring. Several PhD level physicists have already tried to find fault in my theory, but none has so far. The mathematics is perfectly correct in both its values and its dimensions. The theory agrees completely with experimental evidence.
Now you asked me to explain something that the present physics does not. I have already explained a mathematically correct unified field theory that identifies the exact carrier of the strong force. I have provided the most advanced electron binding energy equation known to science. I have also provided a good explanation for neutron beta decay, based on simple dimensional math. In fact, all my theory is based on simple, dimensional math.
In addition to these things the Standard Model does not adequately explain, my theory also explains much of the known phenomena. I’m not saying that I have examined every area of physics, because I haven’t. But each day I incorporate more explanations in my theory. Today, I learned a possible quantum explanation for the Hubble constant. What’s more, this explanation for the Hubble constant is consistent with the apparent production of ZPE.
BTW, ZPE is not getting something for nothing. The energy from ZPE is produced directly from the magnetic moment of the electron, which is perfectly elastic. The energy comes from something, but what this something is, hasn’t been investigated enough to fully understand.
Dave
Re: The theoretical musings continue.
In quantum physics, there is an explanation for ZPE. Apparently (since I have not the math skill to do it) if you solve shroedinger's equation for a vacuum, you will get a non-zero number. So that is energy. But it is not "tappable" in an way.
The quantum explanation for the casimir effect is simply that the small space between two plates is so small that the uncertainty principle does not allow as many particles to pop into and out of existence as it does outside the plates so there is an inward force. But since you did not create any energy on the whole, the particles must pop out of existence with the same energy as they had when they popped into existence. So while there is a force on the plate, it is forbidden to give any energy. here is where I do not fully understand it, since I am no physicist. Could the plates go through the discplacement, doing work from the virtual particles, but since it is a conservative force, when you pull the plates apart again, you would return that energy. Or is it that the virtual particles are forbidden to do work, so if the plates would go through a displacement doing work, the particles would automatically pop out of existence before they hit the outside of the plate, so that no force would occur doing no work. I am not sure on which it is. It seems intuitively that it would be the first, but also, since there is conservation of energy, it sould be the second too. hmmmm. But even if it was the first, the amount of energy that is available from the plates when they collapse into one bigger plate is virtually zero,even if you had huge plates, so......there probably would never be instruments precise enough to detect this.
The quantum explanation for the casimir effect is simply that the small space between two plates is so small that the uncertainty principle does not allow as many particles to pop into and out of existence as it does outside the plates so there is an inward force. But since you did not create any energy on the whole, the particles must pop out of existence with the same energy as they had when they popped into existence. So while there is a force on the plate, it is forbidden to give any energy. here is where I do not fully understand it, since I am no physicist. Could the plates go through the discplacement, doing work from the virtual particles, but since it is a conservative force, when you pull the plates apart again, you would return that energy. Or is it that the virtual particles are forbidden to do work, so if the plates would go through a displacement doing work, the particles would automatically pop out of existence before they hit the outside of the plate, so that no force would occur doing no work. I am not sure on which it is. It seems intuitively that it would be the first, but also, since there is conservation of energy, it sould be the second too. hmmmm. But even if it was the first, the amount of energy that is available from the plates when they collapse into one bigger plate is virtually zero,even if you had huge plates, so......there probably would never be instruments precise enough to detect this.