Thread: Gravity and Electromagnetism

Gravity's diffuseness makes it hard to theoretically analyze compared to electromagnetism (EM). Standard theory of course views gravity as not being a force but rather being due to Einsteinian curvature of "space-time." EM is viewed as being due to electron flow. However, physicists admit they do not really understand these two phenomena.

As an ether-theorist with a more unifying model of these forces, I believe that gravity is the same phenomenon as EM, with gravity's electro- component being under-fired due to its more diffuse origin.

What about this as a new way to think about the two phenomena. -If one considers structural features of certain biological bodies, especially of some of the softer plant species, one can appreciate that some of them have disproportionately wide transverse structure (which aids in functionality), with their associated vertical structure being much less bulky by comparison. Therefore, the distribution of internal energic forces is disproportionate from the standpoint of horizontal-to-vertical. -If (basically EM) energy were the only force acting, the horizontal force vectors of the wide part of the plant would overwhelm the plant's structural integrity; atomic and molecular connections would come unspliced. The plants must have evolved in a way that balanced the force vectors. This would appear to be a point in favor of gravity being the same kind of force as EM, and that gravity is what is balancing the horizontal and vertical force vectors.

The best example of the type of plant structure would be a flower bud with a wide transverse diameter (of course advantageous for pollination). The energic activity in flower buds is very high, and the structure soft.

Just more utter crap from MA. Seriously mods why is this tripe tolerated on a science forum?

Member Michael Anteski, I shall post this only once:

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

Gravity's diffuseness makes it hard to theoretically analyze compared to electromagnetism (EM).

In what sense is gravity more "diffuse" than electromagnetism?
In what way is it harder to analyse? We have accurate theories for both. Arguably, the explanation of gravity is simpler than that of electromagnetism.

However, physicists admit they do not really understand these two phenomena.

They are understood well enough. But, obviously, everything is "not understood" if you dig deep enough.
Richard Feynman - Magnets (And 'Why' Questions) - YouTube

As an ether-theorist

That implies the existence of (a) an aether and (b) a theory. It is therefore a lie. Stop doing that.

with a more unifying model of these forces, I believe that gravity is the same phenomenon as EM, with gravity's electro- component being under-fired due to its more diffuse origin.

Please show, in suitable mathematical detail, how your "theory" produces results at least as accurate as current theory. If you cannot do this, please withdraw your claim and admit you are talking horseshit.

What about this as a new way to think about the two phenomena.

Crap.

Please show, in suitable mathematical detail, how your "theory" produces results at least as accurate as current theory. If you cannot do this, please withdraw your claim and admit you are talking horseshit.

Membership might have noticed the name of this subforum has recently changed to "new hypothesis and idea," suggesting a more rigorous standard which includes things such as predictive and consistent observation and some reasoning that tie a causal effect to explain that prediction.

The OP is a jumble of science sounding rhetoric but, like other "ether" ideas, falls short of resembling a hypothesis. Moved to pseudoscience.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

The energic activity in flower buds is very high, and the structure soft.

Plants are well known for their vigorous and energetic activity.

Strange: you may have missed my ether model for electromagnetism which is far simpler than the standard model for gravity which you extolled as to its simplicity compared to electromagnetism's model. -In my ether model, if you use the example of an electric current passing through a wire and try to explain the associated magnetic field using standard quantum theory of "flowing electrons," and instead apply my ether model, you have a model in which the key player is not electrons, but elemental etheric energic units. (Electrons in the ether model are made up of elemental etheric units with all the EM resonances taking place at the elemental level making for a uniform simple model for resonation and transmission of an impulse). Thus in the ether model, both the magnetic field and the electric current in the wire involve identical etheric energic units, so that the magnetic field is explained simply as the forces in the wire's neighborhood being "re balanced" by the magnetic field after the forces in the area were "un balanceed" by passing the current from one end of the wire to the other. -Standard theory comes up against a quandary when trying to extend the 'electron flow" idea to explain the magnetic field in the space around the wire.

What you have to remember is Mr Anteski does not have a model. All he has is word salad, hand waving and bullshit. Michael either show us the model with the appropriate mathematics, details of how it matches observations at least as well as current mainstream theories and quantitative predictions or STFU and stop peddling this crap.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

Strange: you may have missed my ether model for electromagnetism

I doubt you have a model.

In my ether model, if you use the example of an electric current passing through a wire and try to explain the associated magnetic field using standard quantum theory of "flowing electrons," and instead apply my ether model, you have a model in which the key player is not electrons, but elemental etheric energic units.

Please show, in appropriate mathematical detail, that this model predicts the same results as standard theory (i.e. that your model matches reality). If you are unable to do this, then your "model" is (a) not a model and (b) as useful as the idea that elven sprites push magnets around.

(Electrons in the ether model are made up of elemental etheric units with all the EM resonances taking place at the elemental level making for a uniform simple model for resonation and transmission of an impulse).

Please provide some objective evidence for this claim. Otherwise it has no value.

Standard theory comes up against a quandary when trying to extend the 'electron flow" idea to explain the magnetic field in the space around the wire.

Of course it doesn't.

PhDemon and Strange, I can only repeat my claim that I potentially have a field test to prove my model and more, but haven't the finances for it. I've described it all previously as much as I can.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

PhDemon and Strange, I can only repeat my claim that I potentially have a field test to prove my model and more, but haven't the finances for it. I've described it all previously as much as I can.

No you haven't. You could describe in detail what your field test involves, what results you predict, what results would refute your hypothesis, etc. But you refuse to do any of these. You refuse to produce a model or any evidence to support your "theory".

Therefore everyone will treat you as a crackpot. That is your choice. You apparently want to be treated as a crank. I have no idea why.

It would be very easy to fix though: just take a rational scientific approach to explaining, justifying and testing your idea. Then you will get some respect.

Strange, We are going round in circles. You didn't "get" what I tried to convey in my last post by "prove the ether and more...." and "I told all I can aboiut this potential test..." Stop trying to fit everything into conventional slots. Maybe there could be something outside the "box."

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

Strange, We are going round in circles. You didn't "get" what I tried to convey in my last post by "prove the ether and more...." and "I told all I can aboiut this potential test..." Stop trying to fit everything into conventional slots. Maybe there could be something outside the "box."

I understand perfectly what you say: you [think] you have a model; you claim to have a [secret] experiment to test this.

However, you are unable to describe your model in ways that can be tested (i.e. quantitatively) and you refuse to describe your test.

Therefore your model cannot be evaluated and your test cannot be performed.

This is nothing to do with "conventional slots" of "thinking outside the box" (1). It is purely about using the scientific method to test ideas (2). The fact that you think your idea should be accepted without being tested means that it is a religious belief, not science. It wouldn't matter how unconventional or outside-the-boxy your idea was if you were willing to subject it to scientific testing.

If you actually wanted to develop an experimental test of your idea (3), I would be willing to help you do that. Experiment design is a tricky and fascinating subject in its own right. I am not a scientist, but I have spent many years in test development in engineering and many of the same techniques apply.

So, are you willing to be open and honest, or are you going to continue lying about this test?

(1) Another phrase symptomatic of the crank; why would you do that?
(2) This is, after all, a science forum.
(3) Which clearly you don't, otherwise you wouldn't keep your test secret

Michael stop being a jerkoff crackpot, present your model or STFU.

Strange: Just to object to the way you phrased your last post saying I was unwilling to subject my Model to "scientific testing." -I've repeatedly said that the field test I proposed would include measurements of "before and after" densities of material in the test system, which should decrease in density if the test succeeds in producing etheric energy.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

Strange: Just to object to the way you phrased your last post saying I was unwilling to subject my Model to "scientific testing."

I didn't say that. However, your refusal to describe your [non-existent] test is no different from refusing to subject your idea to testing.

I assume no such test is possible and your are simply lying to give a thin veneer of science to your claims.

Feel free to prove me wrong by providing full details of your model and test here.

It would be a waste of time as he hasn't presented a model to test. How do you test word salad and bullshit? Michael present a model or STFU.

Michael,

Just to absolutely clear. I do not care whether your idea is right or wrong. You post here fairly regularly and always seem slightly surprised and disappointed that no one takes your idea seriously. I am just trying to make you see why that is, and that the problem is as much with your approach as it is with the idea.

Every time you post, all you say is:

I have a model. It consists of vague waffle, with made up words and a side order of timey-wimey ether.

When asked how this idea can be tested, you say:

The test will involve doing something with some stuff and seeing something change. And it will cost money.

Now, a real testable hypothesis would state a mathematical relationship between a cause and an effect. This would then lead on to tests which could measure that relationship and determine, quantitatively and objectively, how accurate the model is.

Do you see the difference?

Very often, new models can be tested with almost no expense by using existing data from experiments and observations that have already been made.

Where this is not possible (which raises suspicions to start with) then a new experiment may have to be designed. This may cost almost nothing (many good experiments can be done with off-the-shelf equipment) or it may cost hundreds of millions. In the latter case, a very good justification would have to be provided (perhaps based on existing data, see above) and full details of the proposed experiment and expected results.

You claim your experiment will be costly, but you refuse to provide any details or cost/benefit analysis. This makes you look like a con-man as well as a liar. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Strange, I repeat my position that absolute adherence to orthodox methods of testing and theoretic proof in science is not necessarily inflexible. I believe I have something that could be proved via a slightly different method in which such methodology as mathematical correlation is not necessary. -Again, I cannot fall in line with your request for full details about the proposed field test. That's as far as I can go.

Present a model or STFU, crackpot.

PhDemon or Strange: Find me a potential financial sponsor, and you would be in on all the details, even just on a tentative (non commital) basis.

Still no model? Asking for a sponser? STFU con-man/liar/charlatan take your pick.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

Strange, I repeat my position that absolute adherence to orthodox methods of testing and theoretic proof in science is not necessarily inflexible.

Then, without some justification for that, I will have to say that you are wrong and have no understanding of how science works.

I believe I have something that could be proved via a slightly different method in which such methodology as mathematical correlation is not necessary.

If it cannot be quantitatively tested then it isn't science. It is as simple as that. I don't know how you expect to define a test where the pass/fail criteria are not well defined.

Let me put it this way: what would convince you that you were mistaken?

-Again, I cannot fall in line with your request for full details about the proposed field test.

Then I have to assume you are either lying or grossly delusional.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

PhDemon or Strange: Find me a potential financial sponsor, and you would be in on all the details, even just on a tentative (non commital) basis.

Why would anyone sponsor someone who says "my model is based on vibrating fooble and vortices of wibble" (which is literally all you have said with your made up words) and "I have a secret test"?

You must be insane to think anyone would take this seriously.

Moderator Warning. Michael, either put up or shut up. State what your model is, or there is no point in you posting on this forum.