Gravity is still electromagnetism

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by impaJah, Feb 1, 2012.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,704

    Like I said, you do not have a scientific theory. The definition of such is well known, or should be. And further more you know I am correct.
    But I will pass on some more info for you.
    Scientific theories are rarely 100% faitre complei certain...new observational and experimental data can add to it. But they do grow in certainty over time.
    Some scientific theories such as the BB, SR, GR, Evolution, Abiogenesis are as close to certainty as one could hope.
    Now go take that disprin and have a good lie down.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,704
    :WE WERE ALL BORN IN THE BELLY OF STARS:
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,049
    That is probably on of the dumbest string of words I have ever seen on this site. You must be joking, if not, well I'm sorry for you.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Einstein was Jewish.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,704

    Now that we have got "what is a scientific theory"out of the way, back to more of your delusions.
    The link you gave is not a scientific link and obviously has an agenda of which you are just as obviously a part of.....
    here....
    http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

    Albert Einstein: God, Religion & Theology
    Explaining Einstein's understanding of God as the Universe / Reality

    Albert Einstein Quotes on Philosophy of Religion, Theology, God
    The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. (Albert Einstein)

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press).



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

    I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

    I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

    We are in the year 2014. A period when even the Catholic church has secumbed and recognised the BB and Evolution and Abiogenesis.
    From that point of the BB though, they depart from science and insert their pixie in the sky.
    I suppose when we finally get a validated QGT, they may shift position again, to try and gain more respectability.

    Latest thoughts in this day and age is asking the question....
    DO WE REALLY NEED A GOD:

    That question is answered here.......
    https://blogs.stsci.edu/livio/2012/11/13/is-our-universe-the-ultimate-free-lunch/
    The inflationary model (described in my previous post, “What Did Go ‘Bang’ in the Big Bang?”) suggested an elegant solution to the puzzle of why our universe is expanding. The model relies on the fact that a region of space filled with a peculiar state called “false vacuum” experiences rapid expansion due to a repulsive gravitational force. But what happened before that? How did the universe get to that state? Naïvely, one would expect that a universe which began from a singularity—a state of infinite matter density and infinite curvature—would collapse rather than expand, since the gravitational attraction of the matter would overwhelm the repulsive force. Before the 1980s, the prevailing views were that the universe was already expanding (albeit in a more leisurely manner) even before inflation, thus diluting matter to the point where the false vacuum started to dominate. However, this was not a satisfactory picture, since it required an unexplained expansion that existed before inflation. We can understand the problem with a simple model of a closed, spherical universe, which is filled with vacuum energy (that generates repulsive gravity) and matter (that creates attractive gravity). Let’s examine this universe when it is momentarily at rest—neither expanding nor contracting. Cosmic evolution from there on will depend crucially on the size of the universe at that instant. According to Einstein’s General Relativity, if the cosmic radius is very small, attractive gravity will win and this universe will collapse to a point. If the radius is very large, repulsive gravity will have the upper hand, and inflation will ensue. In classical physics, the universe could not pass from a collapsing state to an inflating one without the infusion of some energy into it (which the assumption of a pre-inflation expansion attempted to do). However, in 1982 my colleague Alex Vilenkin, a physicist at Tufts University, suddenly had a brilliant realization. In quantum mechanics—the theory of the subatomic world—even processes that are forbidden by classical physics have a certain probability of occurring. This phenomenon is known as quantum tunneling, and it is being routinely observed in radioactive decays and in solid-state physics. Because of its probabilistic nature, quantum mechanics reveals that even a universe that would have been destined to collapse in classical General Relativity could actually tunnel (albeit with a small probability) to the other side, and emerge as an inflating universe. That is, our universe could have started out as a speck doomed to collapse to a singularity, but instead it tunneled through the energy barrier to a larger radius, initiating inflation (Figure 1). But this was not all. Vilenkin demonstrated mathematically that the probability for tunneling did not vanish even when he took the initial size of the universe to be zero. In other words, the universe could tunnel to some radius that allowed it to inflate from literally nothing!

    There is something I need to explain here. “Nothing” is not the same as the vacuum. The physical vacuum, or empty space, is very rich. It has energy, and virtual particles and antiparticles continually appear and disappear in it. Einstein taught us that it can also warp and stretch. By “nothing” I mean that neither space nor time exist. Put differently, if we were to go back in time from the present, Vilenkin’s scenario demonstrated that we would reach a beginning—a point beyond which spacetime did not exist.

    Two questions immediately arise: (1) What about conservation of energy? (2) Why did the universe appear at all? As it turns out, conservation of energy is not a problem. While all the mass in our universe has positive energy, the gravitational attraction has a negative energy associated with it, which precisely balances the positive one. The total energy of our universe is precisely zero, so that there is no problem with the universe materializing out of nothing. Why did the universe appear? Because the laws of physics allowed it to. In quantum mechanics, any process has a certain probability of occurring, and no cause is needed. You will notice, however, that we do have to assume that the laws of physics continue to apply even when there is nothing. I shall return to this assumption in a future post.

    I do not want to leave you with the impression that Vilenkin’s scenario of spacetime tunneling from nothingness into existence is an established fact. At this point it is no more than an attractive speculation that is consistent with the laws of physics. But it addresses what is arguably the biggest question of them all: How did it all begin?
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""


    Hope that helps.
     
  9. Newton's Rival Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    First of all I will step aside of your uneducated usage of wikipedia as you attempted to "slip" it into a academic conversation. Although something tells me that this was intentional, probably thought I wouldn't know any better. But in any case, The original statement that you made was.... I do not have a THEORY! Matter of fact, you stated that several times. I proved you incorrect by giving you a PRIMARY SOURCED definition of the word THEORY! Then you again pulled some slickness and tried to change up what you said by adding "Scientific", and passing a unverified source into your mix. Listen we are not children here, mean what you say, say what you mean, and stick to the facts. All this washing around shit like highschoolers do, and women that put a thumb on their husbands just doesn't work for me. If you make a statement, you better make sure you can academically back it up. Because trust and believe I will dissect it, the same way you are dissecting mine. The only difference is I am not going to sit here like a lawyer and twist everything up to "sound" good like you are or the "jury". Now.... moving on to your other posts.... Let's see what else the "mouth in the cave" has to say.
     
  10. Newton's Rival Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    Scientific link is not relevant. It is a primary sourced link. That makes it credible. Now as for the real debate we are having in this area is apparently whether or not Einstein believed in GOD! Some of you say he was Jewish, that he was at one point, but even if it was during his entire life, JEWS BELIEVE IN GOD if he changed his mind afterwards, who cares....! So your entire point of any of the rebuttal here just makes no sense. How about we mention the list of 23 other's I gave you including Newton. Nothing to say about any of them? Interesting! Seems like we get off on picking and choosing what we want to admit to. Your telling me that Newton was not wrong, "that" part of Newton is being held to your high standard of this debate. Yet, When I say he was a very religious man, even spending years attempting to decode the Bible, suddenly no acknowledgement is made to this FACT! What happened, he is not credible in this area? So we pick and choose who Newton was and how we CHOOSE to see him and his work? B.S! He was a Scientist and a Religious man. Yet you criticize me for being both? That's just Too Funny! And hypocritical btw.....
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2014
  11. Newton's Rival Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    I'll ask God to forgive you about your statements towards His existence. Only because I realize you are just to ignorant to do it yourself. As for everybody else... I suggest you take a step or two back from this guy.... Cause when lightning strikes his ass, you might get caught up in the ricochet! Bahahahaha!
     
  12. Landau Roof Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    598
    How about Jesus? Was he Jewish or Christian?
     
  13. Newton's Rival Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    I'm done talking to you now paddoboy. I have grown tiresome from your antics and childish behaviors. You want to be right so badly you think intentional attack of one's Godly beliefs is something that can be toyed with. That it's fair game. This is the grounding you have decided to use to get "backers" in your battle here. Well it may be a game to you, but I do not find it funny in the least. You know just like I do, that science was separated by many scientists from God, and you think by using that you can gain traction. Again, I reiterate.... Whoever separates God from Science should be slapped in the mouth!
     
  14. Newton's Rival Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    Christianity was based upon Christ. He was born and raised Jewish. But it is never about religion thats what most of you don't get, it's about RELATIONSHIP with GOD. Did Jesus have one? Yes! Isaac Newton...? Yes.... And many many others. As for their denominations.....not relevant!
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2014
  15. Landau Roof Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    598
    Good for you. Paddoboy is just about the worst troll on here, and a hypocritical one at that, more hidebound in his beliefs than most creationists though he'd never admit that. He has no interest in truth of any kind - just thinks his views must be the only correct ones and he will repeat himself endlessly and use bold type to prove he is correct because that's the only sort of proof he understands. Do what I do: put him on your ignore list. You'll be glad you did.
     
    Newton's Rival likes this.
  16. Newton's Rival Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    Lol,,, thats too cute... Thanks Landau..... appreciate the advice and heads up!
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,897
    No, that's the radiant temperature of the rest of the universe. The actual temperature of anything is determined by how fast the molecules that make it up are moving. Thus if you actually measured the temperature of a volume of space, it would be millions of degrees, since the only material you could measure would be the material moving through it - and that material (remnants of solar wind, cosmic rays) has a very high speed indeed.

    Now, if you had a small thermometer that was not in contact with any of these particles, then the thermometer would measure the temperature of itself. It would slowly radiate heat away until it reached equilibrium at about 3K.

    However, anything in Earth orbit receives about a thousand watts per square meter from the Sun. So the Sun would heat up that thermometer to a few hundred degrees C. So your claim fails in both cases. There is no way that something in Earth orbit (like, say, the Earth) can get cold enough on its sun-facing side to have liquid oxygen form.

    No, if you combined anti-hydrogen with anything you would not get fusion; you would get near-instantaneous and conversion of the anti-hydrogen and regular matter to energy. (Google "antimatter.") Fortunately for us, no anti-hydrogen exists on the Earth.

    And again, the upper atmosphere is too low pressure for liquid oxygen to form. Basic physics.
    Yes. that's part of the Van Allen belts. The Earth's magnetic field deflects incoming charged particles via the usual mechanisms of electromagnetism. We've known about them since the 1950's. This discovery is just another aspect of them, a place where the deflected particles concentrate.
    If you were asleep when you posted the above that would explain a lot!
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2014
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,897
    Correct. If the pressure is low enough, then liquid oxygen never forms. It goes straight to a solid. (Google "triple point"" for more information. If you are interested in learning, that is.) So above 45,000 meters, there can be no liquid oxygen. Physics again.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,704
    Some great posts in this thread. A laugh a minute!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,704
    Sure, lots of scientists were religious. No one is perfect.
    But this is 2014! The list you have given is of past times. We have learnt a lot over the last 50 years or so, and as I have shown you, the "absolute" need for any deity is now defunct as I have shown you with a previous reputable link.
    Religions of today in many cases, have seen the need to embrace science...They would look quite foolish if they didn't.
    Be all that as it may, in essence, I'm no religious basher, and whether you believe me or not is totally irrelevant and concerns me even less, but you could go to the religious forum and view my generally complete absence from that forum.

    What does get my goat is when Idiots with questionable qualities and agendas, come to a science forum, denouncing science, and insidiously promoting there unsupported agenda.
    Then I will give them both barrels and hit them where it hurts the most.
    My denigration of your deity seems to have certainly raised your hackles somewhat

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    BTW, I'm not sure if he is in your list, but it was a Belgian Jesuit priest by the name of George La-Maitre that first proposed the BB, based on the current evidence.

    There have been many alternative hypothesis put in this forum.....in fact we have had four different posters, each claiming to have a ToE and to be able to rewrite 20th/21st century physics.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You see the real facts are that if anyone did have an alternative hypothesis [your's for example] that had anything going for it, or was in anyway constructive and predictable, you would not be here....You would follow the scientific method, gather all your evidence and undergo appropriate peer review.

    But then just as quickly, near all our alternative hypothesis pushers, will start to deride the scientific method and peer review, and just as quickly most reasonable people do realise that these forums are the only outlet they have for there nonsense and is open to any Tom, Dick, or Harry.
    In other words they then by necessity turn into conspiracy nutters.
    All of science is conspiring against their home grown truths!

    Now do as I suggested...take a disprin and have a good lay down.
    If you approach this forum with your silly "spit the dummy" and insulting manners, you will get the same insults back.
    Your hypothesis needs to run the gauntlet. All current scientific theories were once hypothesis, and all had to run that gauntlet.
    Just because your hypothesis has been somewhat shredded is no reason to come out swinging and spit the dummy. Take it like a man [woman] should.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2014
  21. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    You're making the statement that scientists that are religious are not perfect, right? In other words, there is a flaw in scientists that are religious that makes them imperfect?
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,704

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ...
    What does get my goat is when Idiots with questionable qualities and agendas, come to a science forum, denouncing science, and insidiously promoting there unsupported agenda.
    Bingo!
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,897
    There are flaws in everyone; religious scientists are no different. However, most scientists I know who are religious manage to effectively ignore the contradictions between their religion's dogma and science when they are doing science. Some can't; these people don't generally make good scientists.
     
    paddoboy likes this.

Share This Page