Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[User Name]

Great job missing his point.

Great job missing my point.

You cared enough to make a comment about it, so you're lying when you say no one cares.

:chuckle:

 

[gcthomas]

It is a tenuous thing, when Christians do this. Our faith is so powerful, that cosmology can't compete, like holding a match next to the sun, and focusing on the matchlight. It's also a terrible thing, because such a view, that "supports" the Christian faith with science (the best science can do is confirm that HE IS RISEN, and anything that points to this), ties and binds the Christian who believes it, limiting their Christian love.

Of course, it could just be that it keeps us humble when we have such biases and cognitive errors, because otherwise we might become too full of ourselves.

Thanks Nihilo.

If the galaxies all had a net negative charge, enough that it'd repel them all away from each other, would they accelerate, or decelerate as they're avoiding each other, due to them all having net negative charge? (If that question even makes sense. )

That's a perfectly sensible question, and the idea explains the acceleration of the galaxies. Unfortunately, the repulsion would be strongest for close galaxies, yet we see that they happily orbit each other due to gravity, so your idea can't be the answer. And in the past, there was no acceleration, only deceleration, so the same problem exists then too.

The difficulty for the interested amateur is that there are an awful lot of very clever young scientists thinking about all these things, and these apparently nice seeming alternatives to the status quo have already been fully considered and modelled and tested and rejected before it had occurred to anyone on this forum. So I come across as a dogmatic nay-sayer, even though I try to explain exactly where the ideas don't match observations of reality. But that is why I joined this forum, to show the wonders of science in all its glory to those who may be influenced by all the ill advised rejections by some of the more determinedly misleading posters. Science doens't need protecting, but there plenty of people who would appreciate an authoritative description of the science without all those little and large distortions that pass as debate around here.

 

[Stripe]

That's a perfectly sensible question.

:AMR:

Are you serious? You think a pair of galaxies would respond to each other due to their electrical charges? You think this would overcome gravity?

 

[gcthomas]

:AMR:

Are you serious? You think a pair of galaxies would respond to each other due to their electrical charges? You think this would overcome gravity?

The electrostatic forces have an infinite range, and would influence motion even in the presence of gravity. So it is a sensible question if it is not clear how much charge there is or the possible side effects.

And of course, as you would know if you read the answer, the side effects rule out electrostatics in this case.

('Overcome gravity' is an interesting phrase to hear when I am diagnosing physics concept misconceptions in my professional capacity. Would you like to know why?)

 

[Clete]

Despite you calling me a moron in the earlier post, and this..


I responded carefully and considerately and in some detail. Your response was to discuss what was raised? Thank me for my attempts to explain? Well, no:



Great. What a grown up response when I answered one of your two questions with care. The other, a demand that I do your research for you and find the experiments you should have found yourself if you had researched the topic enough to claim to understand the universe better than Einstein did, I declined. You should be able to find them for yourself — I am not going to teach you all the Physics and history of science you ought to know.

Then this:


What is this? It is not a discussion point from any grown ups I know. Last chance demands? Sheesh.. I wonder what will come next. A rational rebuttal to the point made? Nope …



No, sadly. More attempts at personal insults and another threat. Funnily, you have told me several times you wouldn't respond, but you couldn't help yourself. Never mind.

In any case, I know from experience that when you engage people who also hold other crank science ideas that they will never listen to what is said and never accept that they are misrepresenting the science they criticise. No, I am just pointing out to anyone reading that Enyart's acceptance of crank ideas to further his own religious positions (as he claimed himself) does not represent any great intellectual insight, but rather a desperate rearguard action to prevent science undermining things he holds strongly as a matter of faith. Sad, really. That you only have Stripe on your side says much.

Bye bye! I will continue to critique your funny attempts to bring down relativity, or gravitational theory or whatever. But I won't hold out for rational responses from you. Feel free to ignore me, it will save me from having to wade past the juvenile insults to try to find the morsels worth addressing.

Your choice is final. Welcome to my ignore list. You've deserved to be there for a while.

 

[Clete]

If the galaxies all had a net negative charge, enough that it'd repel them all away from each other, would they accelerate, or decelerate as they're avoiding each other, due to them all having net negative charge? (If that question even makes sense. )

They would accelerate but I know of no one that even suggests that galaxies have a net negative charge. Certain not such that they would repel each other like so many magnets. Do you?

 

[gcthomas]

They would accelerate but I know of no one that even suggests that galaxies have a net negative charge. Certain not such that they would repel each other like so many magnets. Do you?

Except for you, Clete, with your support for the electromagnetic theory of gravity. How did you think it was supposed to work? It is a crank theory and you do yourself no favours by associating with it.

 

[gcthomas]

Your choice is final. Welcome to my ignore list. You've deserved to be there for a while.

I've wanted to be there for a while, and you said you'd do it weeks ago. I'll no longer have to deal with your petty insults and 5th grade scientific reasoning. (See what I did there? )

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your choice is final. Welcome to my ignore list. You've deserved to be there for a while.

Now that he's on your ignore list, perhaps you could help me out in a few other threads? I'll PM you the links if you're interested.

 

[Nihilo]

The electrostatic forces have an infinite range, and would influence motion even in the presence of gravity. So it is a sensible question if it is not clear how much charge there is or the possible side effects.

And of course, as you would know if you read the answer, the side effects rule out electrostatics in this case.

('Overcome gravity' is an interesting phrase to hear when I am diagnosing physics concept misconceptions in my professional capacity. Would you like to know why?)

I see that the relative masses of protons and neutrons (baryons) to electrons is about 1800-to-1. On a mass basis, how much surplus or excess electrons would two neighboring galaxies require, in order to possess a net negative charge sufficient enough to violate their expected behavior wrt each other, based only on gravity?

In other words, in a strictly hypothetical object exclusively composed of only atomic mass (baryons and leptons), of 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, with a net zero charge, the mass relation between baryons and electrons is about 3000-to-1, so only 1/3000th of the mass of the object is electrons. What mass of the object would be required to manifest an effect contrary to what we would expect, if the only force in play is gravity, in just electrons?

I'm asking because I don't think it would be very much, on a mass basis.

 

[Nihilo]

Thanks Nihilo.



That's a perfectly sensible question, and the idea explains the acceleration of the galaxies. Unfortunately, the repulsion would be strongest for close galaxies, yet we see that they happily orbit each other due to gravity, so your idea can't be the answer.

What if then, instead of all galaxies possessing a uniform net negative charge, different galaxies have different net charges? Therefore, the galaxies that happen to be closest to each other, and do not repel each other, happen to possess lower-magnitude net negative charges than those farther away, off by themselves?

My instinct tells me that I'm missing something in the question, but I'm OK being wrong in public. On an anonymous internet discussion board.

 

[Nihilo]

They would accelerate but I know of no one that even suggests that galaxies have a net negative charge. [Certainly] not such that they would repel each other like so many magnets. Do you?

I don't, but that's why I'm asking about the notion. You're the one who mentioned electromagnetism, so you planted this seed.

 

[gcthomas]

What if then, instead of all galaxies possessing a uniform net negative charge, different galaxies have different net charges? Therefore, the galaxies that happen to be closest to each other, and do not repel each other, happen to possess lower-magnitude net negative charges than those farther away, off by themselves?

There is a problem of the self repelling nature of those electric charges: how would the galaxy form if the charge could overwhelm the attractive nature of gravity. Offhand, the quantity would be of the order of the mass of the galaxy reduced by the extra strength of the force of the electric charge, as you have guessed. But an electric charge would affect the motion of constituent parts of the galaxy, which would be clearly visible in telescopes.

My instinct tells me that I'm missing something in the question, but I'm OK being wrong in public. On an anonymous internet discussion board.

Being wrong in public is good for the soul (if not your reputation :up: ). But I post under my real name. Well, as initials.

 

[Stripe]

The electrostatic forces have an infinite range, and would influence motion even in the presence of gravity. So it is a sensible question if it is not clear how much charge there is or the possible side effects.

Sounds unlikely.

And of course, as you would know if you read the answer, the side effects rule out electrostatics in this case.

The answer to the question I just asked? :AMR:

'Overcome gravity' is an interesting phrase.

That's nice. Should I have said "overwhelm"?

Would you like to know why?)

How about you answer one of the on-topic questions I've asked. :up:

How do you establish relativity? Have you even read Einstein's paper that claims to do so?

There is a problem of the self repelling nature of those electric charges: how would the galaxy form if the charge could overwhelm the attractive nature of gravity. Offhand, the quantity would be of the order of the mass of the galaxy reduced by the extra strength of the force of the electric charge, as you have guessed. But an electric charge would affect the motion of constituent parts of the galaxy, which would be clearly visible in telescopes.

Being wrong in public is good for the soul (if not your reputation :up: ). But I post under my real name. Well, as initials.

:yawn:



Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app

 

[Clete]

Now that he's on your ignore list, perhaps you could help me out in a few other threads? I'll PM you the links if you're interested.

OK

 

[JudgeRightly]

OK

Sent

 

[Nihilo]

There is a problem of the self repelling nature of those electric charges: how would the galaxy form if the charge could overwhelm the attractive nature of gravity. Offhand, the quantity would be of the order of the mass of the galaxy reduced by the extra strength of the force of the electric charge, as you have guessed. But an electric charge would affect the motion of constituent parts of the galaxy, which would be clearly visible in telescopes.

My final proposal is, what if each galaxy had surrounding it a shell of electrons. I have no idea how such an object could stably exist, apart from gravity. If the inside of the galaxy was electrically neutral, there would be no electrical attraction to it, so the only force acting on the swarm of electrons would be gravity. This should address the problem of gravity explaining perfectly well behavior within each galaxy itself, and a variable amount of electrons/charge swarming around each galaxy would explain how some of them orbit each other happily, while others are racing away from each other.

Being wrong in public is good for the soul (if not your reputation :up: ). But I post under my real name. Well, as initials.

You're braver then me. I come here to air out the cobwebs in my brain.

 

[gcthomas]

My final proposal is, what if each galaxy had surrounding it a shell of electrons. I have no idea how such an object could stably exist, apart from gravity. If the inside of the galaxy was electrically neutral, there would be no electrical attraction to it, so the only force acting on the swarm of electrons would be gravity. This should address the problem of gravity explaining perfectly well behavior within each galaxy itself, and a variable amount of electrons/charge swarming around each galaxy would explain how some of them orbit each other happily, while others are racing away from each other.
You're braver then me. I come here to air out the cobwebs in my brain.

This made me think. But the electron shell would not bee able to exert a force on the galaxy, so if the shells around two galaxies pushed each other apart, the galaxies would remain behind.

 

[Nihilo]

This made me think. But the electron shell would not bee able to exert a force on the galaxy, so if the shells around two galaxies pushed each other apart, the galaxies would remain behind.

Ah, yes. Thank you so much. :e4e:

 

[Clete]

I don't, but that's why I'm asking about the notion. You're the one who mentioned electromagnetism, so you planted this seed.

Well, I've watched several videos on youtube and read some things here and there about this electric universe model. Some of what they are proposing seems very plausible and some of what they say isn't plausible at all. In fact, some of what they propose is so outlandish that it will have the effect of sidelining their other good ideas. Anyone who doesn't like the theory will just have to say "Those are the guys who believe that XYZ wacky nonsense!" and that'll be enough to discredit everything else they say.

They are, I think, a victim of the same thing that has allowed them to flourish to the extent they have. That being the internet. It is a real double edged sword. The same thing that allows you to have your voice heard by millions at very little cost is the same thing that draws every nut job who happens to be articulate to your cause. Every bit of traction you get with your legitimate ideas is more incentive for the wackos to glom on and ride your coat tails. Walt Thornhill would have a lot more credibility if he'd distance himself from David Talbot, for example. (Not that Talbot is the only one saying wacky things.)

Primarily, the part I find most plausible about the electric universe model is the simple idea that plasma physics plays a much more important role in the formation and evolution of the universe than the standard model is willing to entertain. Electromagnetism is almost infinitely stronger than gravity and it, like gravity, diminishes according to the inverse square law and thus extends off into infinity. And so even a little bit of electromagnetism can have as much or more of an effect as gravity has on the way things behave.

Now, there's a problem with that idea. The laws of gravity and the equations used to calculate the motions of the planets and other celestial bodies work really well and it makes no mention of any other force. In other words, Newton's equations (and Einstein's) can tell you will a lot of precision where Jupiter is going to be 50 years from now or where it was 50 years ago and it doesn't need to take electromagnetism into account. Therefore, at least in our solar system (and in a lot of other places), electromagnetism doesn't seem to be a factor.

In fact, this is the primary objection used to refute the whole idea. The EU model folks have explanations and even suggest that the EU model predicts this but I'm not familiar enough with it to explain it here. The point though is that their explanations are plausible and yet, just as happens here on TOL, their explanations don't make the objection go away. People who make the argument just keep on making it as though it hasn't been refuted or even addressed. This behavior only lends the EU model more credibility in my view, even if only on an emotional level.

At any rate, your idea about a net negative charge causing galaxies to move away from each other is interesting but I'm pretty sure that isn't what they think is going on. In fact, the only reason anyone thinks that galaxies are moving away from each other is because of red shift. There are a lot of holes in red shift theory. Red shift cannot rightly be used the way the standard model uses it. As a result, I don't think that there is any need to explain galactic motion as there is some doubt that it is happening the way and to the extent that we've been taught. The EU model would suggest that red shift is a function of a celestial body's age rather than it's distance. As a result, the EU model suggests a much smaller and much younger universe than does the standard model.

I think this younger and smaller universe idea is the point that causes the establishment science community to just close their minds to the whole idea. I guarantee you that many just instantly assume that these EU people must be Christians, which they aren't at all, by the way. But regardless of whether they care about their religious beliefs, a younger universe would force them to up-end their entire worldview, which they are just not willing to do.

Well, I've rambled on too long. If you're interested in hearing more about the EU model. Check out their website here...

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/

and their YouTube channel here...

https://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject

My advice is to watch the videos in the "Beginner's Guide Video Clips" section first.

And just ignore the videos in the "Discourses on an Alien Sky" section.

Try doing a search of "red shift" and watch their videos about that. Those will blow your mind.

Clete