"we do not seem to have the correct theory of gravity"

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Maxila, Jun 11, 2014.

  1. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    How do you know that gravity can't be electromagnetism in nature , in the same family as X-rays , and that it doesn't push ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Welcome back Dywyddr! :wave:
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Because not one single piece of evidence or data we have suggests the either is likely, let alone true.
    It's okay you making wild ideas, but do you have any evidence to support you?
    I doubt it.
    There have been (and, presumably will be in the future) numerous threads on "push gravity" [sup]1[/sup] - all of which end up in either Pseudo or Cesspool. Because they're wrong.
    As for gravity being E-M (which, again, you apparently haven't bothered to look up) (here's Google: Is gravity electromagnetic? - see, I even gave you the benefit of the doubt by ASKING) one indicator that they're not even close to being the same is their relative strengths.

    1 Presumably, since you had to ask "how do I know" you haven't bothered Googling - or even looking in this forum - for anything along these lines: i.e. you're just spouting the first thing that comes into your head without checking its validity.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Hey Aqueous!
     
  8. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Actually there is

    In the book by , joesph P. Farrell , he discusses T.T.Browns theory

    First " the basic Biefeld-Brown effect is quite simple . It is manifested as a departure from the Coulomb law of electrostatic attraction , in that the opposite forces are not equal. The negative electrode appears to chase the positive electrode , so that there is a net force on the system(dipole) in the negative-to-positive direction. "
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Apart from the problematic facts that
    A) Farrell is certifiable nutcase [sup]1[/sup], and
    B) Farrell isn't a physicist, therefore whatever he claims is either taken from someone else (with no guarantee that that's what they actually said or meant) or made up, "based on" his lack of knowledge.

    The Biefeld-Brown effect is an electrostatic wind: it's no more "electromagnetic gravity" than a Pegasus engine is "hot air gravity".

    You really (really really) should stay away from crank authors.

    1 Correction: or a very canny and dishonest charlatan.
     
  10. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    further ,

    " In other words, Brown has sandwiched a layer of a material that does not conduct electricity between two layers of a material that does conduct electricity. the material that does not conduct electricity is called the " dielectric, or insulator " and the material that does conduct electricity is called an electrode.

    Because the dielectric layer interrupts the flow of electrical energy in the apparatus, the circuit is not completed, and this is one reason why Brown and the scientist called in by him to test the results , unite in saying the electrical energy present was not the cause of the force liberated ".
     
  11. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Perhaps, if you'd read (and understood) my post you'd have realised that simply adding more claims from Farrell - especially claims that don't even mention gravity being electromagnetic - was largely redundant.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    the point is , is this according to T.T.Brown , no first Einstein in 1928 was trying to Unify electromagnetism with gravity , ironically , at the same time , Brown filed for and got his patent for his gravitor.

    Brown was convinced of his electro-gravitics , because he noticed " varying results depending upon , planetary and stellar positioning relative to the galactic center "

    so space-time to Brown , was not a continuum but is a quantized phenomenon , like quantum mechanics
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    therefore

    " Brown was saying that space itself was a dielectric , and the material Universe an asymmetrical dipole in the state of non-equilibrium "
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    And the ACTUAL point is: the B-B defect is electrostatic wind and thus it's NOT an indicator that gravity is electromagnetic.

    Not one attempt at which managed to produce anything workable [sup]1[/sup].

    Yeah.
    Anyone can claim that. Can they show it's true?

    Can you explain to me how that means that gravity is electromagnetic?

    It's all very well persistently quoting Farrell quoting (or paraphrasing) Brown, but Brown's claims have not been shown to be factual [sup]1[/sup].

    1 Unless you subscribe to what's written by the loon Farrell.
     
  15. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    by whom ?
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Anyway

    When you to the first post of the OP

    Notice in the video that the two move TOWARDS EACH OTHER

    It would be expected in Browns theory of gravity
     
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    By anyone.

    I have no idea what this means.

    Nor this.
    Unless you're claiming that "ordinary" gravity wouldn't make the two move toward each other... (in fact gravity's sorta notorious for pulling things toward each other).
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    yet the standard model does not include gravity , oddly enough

    Browns model explains gravity
     
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Some confusion here (on your part).
    It's all very well claiming the standard model doesn't include gravity and that "Brown's model explains it" because Brown didn't have anything approaching the standard model.
    And, just for the sake of completeness of course, could you tell me the utility of a "model" that "explains gravity" but doesn't actually work (i.e. doesn't produce the results it claims to)?
    This is like saying my Peanut Butter and Tomato Sandwich Model[sup]TM, Pat. Pending[/sup] accounts for gravity, the Higgs and the Cookie Monster. But please don't use it because you can't get any workable answers from it.
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Hmmm... the standard model doesn't include gravity


    Standard Model


    The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory of three of the four known fundamental interactions and the elementary particles that take part in these interactions. These particles make up all visible matter in the universe. The standard model is a gauge theory of the electroweak and strong interactions with the gauge group SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1).

    Every high energy physics experiment carried out since the mid-20th century has eventually yielded findings consistent with the Standard Model. Still, the Standard Model falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions because it does not include gravity, dark matter, or dark energy. It isn't quite a complete description of leptons either, because it does not describe nonzero neutrino masses, although simple natural extensions do.
     
  21. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    You've said that.
    So what?
    Is there some sort of point here?
    Or are you simply attempting to bolster Brown's claims by trying to discredit the standard model?
    I have already pointed that:
    A) Brown had nothing even approaching the standard model (regardless of anything else), ergo the "comparison" is flawed, and
    B) Brown's model doesn't work anyway.
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Brown doesn't discredit the standard model since gravity isn't a part of the model , but enhances it

    A) Brown doesn't need to have a theory on the standard model , but certainly will change it

    B) show how Brown's model of gravity doesn't work ? so far your just waving your hands around , with no evidence that he is wrong
     
  23. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Try reading.
    I'll quote the relevant part, with emphasis on the part you seem to have missed.
    Then why bring the comparison into the discussion?

    How does a "theory" that doesn't work change a working one?

    My evidence is that his work has produced nothing that works.
    All claims about his "electromagnetic gravity" have been show to be nothing more than electrostatic wind - a completely different phenomenon.
    If you are claiming that his model does work then show the results: it's that simple.

    And again you're showing some confusion.
    You brought up his work (post #25) and claimed it was evidence that electromagnetism and gravity were the same.
    It is, therefore, incumbent upon YOU to show that this is so.
    The FACT that Brown's "theories" have produced nothing that matches his claims is an indicator that he was wrong.
    Unless you're claiming that, as I mentioned earlier, a "theory" that doesn't give actual working results in the real world is somehow "evidence" it's viable and correct.
     

Share This Page