The theoretical musings continue.

It may be difficult to separate "theory" from "application," but let''s see if this helps facilitate the discussion.
User avatar
Adam Szendrey
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:36 pm
Real name: Adam Szendrey
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Re: AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Adam Szendrey » Thu Dec 11, 2003 11:01 am

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

3l
Posts: 1866
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2001 7:51 pm
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by 3l » Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:49 pm

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

guest

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest » Thu Dec 11, 2003 2:59 pm

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

guest

Re: AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest » Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:07 pm

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

guest

Re: AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by guest » Thu Dec 11, 2003 3:09 pm

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

User avatar
Richard Hull
Moderator
Posts: 12513
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 1:44 pm
Real name: Richard Hull

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hull » Thu Dec 11, 2003 4:38 pm

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
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
Retired now...Doing only what I want and not what I should...every day is a saturday.

Richard Hester
Posts: 1458
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 4:07 am
Real name:

Re: AHHHHHHH Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Richard Hester » Thu Dec 11, 2003 7:13 pm

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.

User avatar
Adam Szendrey
Posts: 1333
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:36 pm
Real name: Adam Szendrey
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by Adam Szendrey » Thu Dec 11, 2003 8:01 pm

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

grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 3:10 am
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by grrr6 » Thu Dec 11, 2003 8:32 pm

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.

grrr6
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 3:10 am
Real name:

Re: The theoretical musings continue.

Post by grrr6 » Thu Dec 11, 2003 8:54 pm

"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.

Post Reply