Static electric fields can be "blocked" 100% - that is not debatable. Just an application of Gauss's Law. An external ELECTRIC field cannot induce an electric field inside a hollow conductor - PERIOD. Even tight meshes can significantly reduce the intensity of electric fields to where their effects become insignificant.
You are confusing an approximation to a Faraday cage using a wire mesh or a metal sheet with holes in it from what the definition of a true Faraday cage is. A Faraday cage is a SOLID seamless hollow shell. A wire mesh is not as effective as a solid seamless hollow shell in shielding against ELECTRIC fields.
You are confusing an approximation to a Faraday cage using a wire mesh or a metal sheet with holes in it from what the definition of a true Faraday cage is. A Faraday cage is a SOLID seamless hollow shell. A wire mesh is not as effective as a solid seamless hollow shell in shielding against ELECTRIC fields.
Most certainly a tight hole-less, seamless solid shell Faraday cage can and will 100% block ALL ELECTROSTATIC disturbances from transferring from the outside to the inside and also from the inside to the outside of the cage. Bidirectional or unidirectional communication of electrostatic phenomena is BLOCKED.
An effective Faraday cage that will shield against both static and time varying fields of all frequencies can be built with alternating layers of MU metal and copper sheets having no holes or leaky seams.
An effective Faraday cage that will shield against both static and time varying fields of all frequencies can be built with alternating layers of MU metal and copper sheets having no holes or leaky seams.
Series 81 FARADAY CAGES
Attenuation is one of the principal indicators for measuring the effectiveness of electromagnetic interference shielding. It refers to the difference between an electromagnetic signal’s intensity before shielding and its intensity after shielding. Attenuation is marked in decibels (dB) that correspond to the ratio between field strength with and without the presence of a protective medium. A rating of 50 dB indicates a shielding strength ten times that of 40 dB. In general, a shielding range of 10 to 30 dB provides the lowest effective level of shielding, while anything below that range can be considered little or no shielding. Shielding between 60 and 90 dB may be considered a high level of protection, while 90 to 120 dB is exceptional.
Attenuation is one of the principal indicators for measuring the effectiveness of electromagnetic interference shielding. It refers to the difference between an electromagnetic signal’s intensity before shielding and its intensity after shielding. Attenuation is marked in decibels (dB) that correspond to the ratio between field strength with and without the presence of a protective medium. A rating of 50 dB indicates a shielding strength ten times that of 40 dB. In general, a shielding range of 10 to 30 dB provides the lowest effective level of shielding, while anything below that range can be considered little or no shielding. Shielding between 60 and 90 dB may be considered a high level of protection, while 90 to 120 dB is exceptional.
Electrostatics list:
1/. "Gravity depends on mass, electric fields depend on charge"
KG's and Coulombs are directly interchangeable according to basic SI units.
No they are not, even if you try to use stat coulombs
1 statC = g1/2 cm3/2 s−1
Mass is NOT equal to charge
Now mass to charge RATIOS are used in electrodynamics but you cannot equate the two.
Kilogram is a unit of mass. A Coulomb is a unit of charge. There is no conversion factor between them. You might as well ask how many minutes are in a foot.
Getting deeper every particle has charge, even the Neutron is a combination of equal and opposite charges to cancel each other out, but essentially all mass and density of it, depends on its charge content.
No mass-energy of protons and neutrons mainly comes from the strong nuclear force binding energy (over 90% of mass)..
Now the more charge you get the more energy, as its a directly proportional relationship, and E=MC^2 which brings us full circle.
Charge is NOT the same thing as energy, and charge itself does not carry energy. Rather, it is the object, which also happens to have charge and its corresponding field, that can contain energy. The ACTUAL energy depends on the potential equation of geometry, positions, other forces present , etc.
A Joule is a unit of energy. A Coulomb is a unit of charge. There is no conversion factor between them. You might as well ask how many minutes are in a foot.
Not forgetting that 80% of the first part of Einstein's Special Relativity in 1905 was reverse engineering Maxwell's Equations to make them equivalent/applicable to mass.
80% is pretty specific , source please! You are just pulling stuff out of your arse.
2/. "Electric fields and electric charges can be shielded gravity cannot"
You are neutralizing charge, not removing it. There is always background radiation in every experiment, no matter if you are miles beneath the earths surface or in the thickest mu-metal box, where there is moving matter there is charge. Even deeper you have the aether, or Zero-Point Energy which has more evidence it exists in the likes of the Casimir Effect, Lamb Shift, Vacuum Bifringence, Spontaneous Pair Production, Magnet Moment of the Electron and more recently the Muon. Meaning there is additional energies in the vacuum which our current theories in QM cannot calculate correctly.
Using QED (quantum electrodynamics), Those quantum effects will all add up show a net zero electric field outside of a well made SEAMLESS faraday cage. Maxwells equations for dielectric materials WORK and are MUCH easier to work with. You don’t need quantum mechanics. Plus these are not the same thing, you are confusing electric charges, electric fields with quantum zero point energy. Not the same thing!!!
These quantum effects are not electric. These energies are all measured in Joules which are "kg⋅m2⋅s−2". No charge. Again charge is not the same thing as energy . This is a fundamental error and shows lack of understanding basic physics.
A Joule is a unit of energy. A Coulomb is a unit of charge. There is no conversion factor between them. You might as well ask how many minutes are in a foot.
1/. "Gravity depends on mass, electric fields depend on charge"
KG's and Coulombs are directly interchangeable according to basic SI units.
No they are not, even if you try to use stat coulombs
1 statC = g1/2 cm3/2 s−1
Mass is NOT equal to charge
Now mass to charge RATIOS are used in electrodynamics but you cannot equate the two.
Kilogram is a unit of mass. A Coulomb is a unit of charge. There is no conversion factor between them. You might as well ask how many minutes are in a foot.
Getting deeper every particle has charge, even the Neutron is a combination of equal and opposite charges to cancel each other out, but essentially all mass and density of it, depends on its charge content.
No mass-energy of protons and neutrons mainly comes from the strong nuclear force binding energy (over 90% of mass)..
Now the more charge you get the more energy, as its a directly proportional relationship, and E=MC^2 which brings us full circle.
Charge is NOT the same thing as energy, and charge itself does not carry energy. Rather, it is the object, which also happens to have charge and its corresponding field, that can contain energy. The ACTUAL energy depends on the potential equation of geometry, positions, other forces present , etc.
A Joule is a unit of energy. A Coulomb is a unit of charge. There is no conversion factor between them. You might as well ask how many minutes are in a foot.
Not forgetting that 80% of the first part of Einstein's Special Relativity in 1905 was reverse engineering Maxwell's Equations to make them equivalent/applicable to mass.
80% is pretty specific , source please! You are just pulling stuff out of your arse.
2/. "Electric fields and electric charges can be shielded gravity cannot"
You are neutralizing charge, not removing it. There is always background radiation in every experiment, no matter if you are miles beneath the earths surface or in the thickest mu-metal box, where there is moving matter there is charge. Even deeper you have the aether, or Zero-Point Energy which has more evidence it exists in the likes of the Casimir Effect, Lamb Shift, Vacuum Bifringence, Spontaneous Pair Production, Magnet Moment of the Electron and more recently the Muon. Meaning there is additional energies in the vacuum which our current theories in QM cannot calculate correctly.
Using QED (quantum electrodynamics), Those quantum effects will all add up show a net zero electric field outside of a well made SEAMLESS faraday cage. Maxwells equations for dielectric materials WORK and are MUCH easier to work with. You don’t need quantum mechanics. Plus these are not the same thing, you are confusing electric charges, electric fields with quantum zero point energy. Not the same thing!!!
These quantum effects are not electric. These energies are all measured in Joules which are "kg⋅m2⋅s−2". No charge. Again charge is not the same thing as energy . This is a fundamental error and shows lack of understanding basic physics.
A Joule is a unit of energy. A Coulomb is a unit of charge. There is no conversion factor between them. You might as well ask how many minutes are in a foot.
3/. "Why don't objects of different electrical charge or magnetic properties fall at different rates"
So you have never heard of Boyd Bushman from Lockheed Martin who dropped a rock and a massive dual-magnet painted like a rock of exactly the same mass and in his many repeated experiments the dual-magnet ALWAYS fell after the standard rock? This was signed off as witnessed by many other scientists and there is video footage of the experiment on YouTube.
He is a crackpot that was exposed for taking a picture of a model alien / toy (probably) - below- and was discredited as a charlatan in every sense of the word. Where is the ACTUAL evidence that really happened anyway? Proof!! This is laughable you are dragging in Boyd Bushmann to your so called proofs.
So you have never heard of Boyd Bushman from Lockheed Martin who dropped a rock and a massive dual-magnet painted like a rock of exactly the same mass and in his many repeated experiments the dual-magnet ALWAYS fell after the standard rock? This was signed off as witnessed by many other scientists and there is video footage of the experiment on YouTube.
He is a crackpot that was exposed for taking a picture of a model alien / toy (probably) - below- and was discredited as a charlatan in every sense of the word. Where is the ACTUAL evidence that really happened anyway? Proof!! This is laughable you are dragging in Boyd Bushmann to your so called proofs.
Electrostatic Gravity
Since mass-to-mass attraction would collapse a flat earth into a sphere, the flat earthers must pre-reject mass-to-mass attraction.
Some flat earthers propose that the downward acceleration is due to electrostatics. Though, they have never explained how an object with a net-neutral charge could be affected by this. Neither have they explained why the downward force is directly proportional to mass, not electric charge.
Flat earthers have presented a few papers to support their claims. Do these papers support their claims? Let’s have a look.
Example of Papers to Look at Gleem and Witsit Share
An Electrostatic Solution for the Gravity Force and the Value of G - Morton F Spears 2010
2. On the Classical Coupling between Gravity and Electromagnetism - University of Nebraska - Lincoln - 2015
3. Gravitation as 4th-order Electromagnetic effect - Universidade Estaclual de Campinas - 1995
4. The Electrostatic Model of Gravity - XII International Symposium on Nucleir in the Cosmos - 2012
5. Electrostatic Gravity Mechanism of Action Based on Dieletric Properties of Physical Vacuum and Physical Meaning of Gravitation Potential - National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University - 2016
6. Gravity as the Second-order Relativistic-Manifestation of Electrostatic-Force - RC GUPTA Unification of Gravitation and Electrostatics - Moi University
Problems with these papers at a glance:
1) They try to equate mass with charge yet we know particles that have mass but no charge;
2) Electron, Muon and Tau neutrinos have mass but no charge. Z boson and W boson. Higgs Boson.
3) They use faulty radius numbers for the electron
Worst for flat earthers:
4) They assume a sphere
5) They do NOT deny mass attracting mass.
Since mass-to-mass attraction would collapse a flat earth into a sphere, the flat earthers must pre-reject mass-to-mass attraction.
Some flat earthers propose that the downward acceleration is due to electrostatics. Though, they have never explained how an object with a net-neutral charge could be affected by this. Neither have they explained why the downward force is directly proportional to mass, not electric charge.
Flat earthers have presented a few papers to support their claims. Do these papers support their claims? Let’s have a look.
Example of Papers to Look at Gleem and Witsit Share
An Electrostatic Solution for the Gravity Force and the Value of G - Morton F Spears 2010
2. On the Classical Coupling between Gravity and Electromagnetism - University of Nebraska - Lincoln - 2015
3. Gravitation as 4th-order Electromagnetic effect - Universidade Estaclual de Campinas - 1995
4. The Electrostatic Model of Gravity - XII International Symposium on Nucleir in the Cosmos - 2012
5. Electrostatic Gravity Mechanism of Action Based on Dieletric Properties of Physical Vacuum and Physical Meaning of Gravitation Potential - National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University - 2016
6. Gravity as the Second-order Relativistic-Manifestation of Electrostatic-Force - RC GUPTA Unification of Gravitation and Electrostatics - Moi University
Problems with these papers at a glance:
1) They try to equate mass with charge yet we know particles that have mass but no charge;
2) Electron, Muon and Tau neutrinos have mass but no charge. Z boson and W boson. Higgs Boson.
3) They use faulty radius numbers for the electron
Worst for flat earthers:
4) They assume a sphere
5) They do NOT deny mass attracting mass.
1. An Electrostatic Solution for the Gravity Force and the Value of G - Morton F Spears 2010
|
|
Problem 1
A -- Fudge factor - ration of 2 capacitances
Gravitational force between two electrons to gravitational force between any two masses.
Fg = A*Fge
A is wrong
A -- Fudge factor - ration of 2 capacitances
Gravitational force between two electrons to gravitational force between any two masses.
Fg = A*Fge
A is wrong
Problem 2 - Ratio of R's to equate to ration of masses
WRONG
Constant A is the fatal error in the paper.
WRONG
Constant A is the fatal error in the paper.
Problem 3
Effective Radius -
Effective Radius -
He is basically taking the ratios of Capacitance be
First think about the ratios on page 24 on your point 4: R1 / Re = C1 / Ce = M1 / Me You did catch the inverse relationship of the electron mass to the radius problem
Plus the classical radius of an electron has NOTHING to do with actual physical dimensions of an electron - the classical radius arises from the dimensions needed to explain the scattering of high frequency electromagnetic radiation and nothing to do with physical reality. What is physical reality for an electron anyway? The classical radius of an electron is 3.35 times LARGER than a proton(which can be measured) yet the proton is 1836 more massive. Now if that is not a problem, what is?
Fg = Gs M1 M2 / r ^2 where Gs = 1.2180188 x 10^(-40) / [ M1 + M2 ]
In this corrected equation, the Spears gravitational constant, Gs, is NOT a constant but a function of the masses for which the force of gravitational attraction is being determined and differs in magnitude from the correct value by over 29 orders of magnitude and more for masses greater than a kilogram!
IN SUMMARY: The electrostatic nature of big "G" derived by Spears is utter nonsense. Following his derivation using the CORRECT EXPRESSIONS for the capacitance between two spherical objects and between two electrons, Spears's big "G" is not a constant but a function of the masses with a magnitude so incredibly far out from the correct value that one has to wonder if he purposely fudged this as a joke or really did not understand what it was he was doing.
2. On the Classical Coupling between Gravity and Electromagnetism - University of Nebraska - Lincoln - 2015
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/physicsbatelaan/1/
This paper is dedicated to calculating the effect of gravity on an electrical field. This paper affirms mass-to-mass attraction, and Einstein’s theories of Special and General Relativity.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/physicsbatelaan/1/
This paper is dedicated to calculating the effect of gravity on an electrical field. This paper affirms mass-to-mass attraction, and Einstein’s theories of Special and General Relativity.
Here is REAL pseudoscience. The main demarcation is falsifiability. If something is "proven" it is not falsifiable, thus non-science. Since he is acting like science, this is the definition of pseudoscience.
3. Gravitation as 4th-order Electromagnetic effect - Universidade Estaclual de Campinas - 1995
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812831323_0010
This paper is another attempt to unify electromagnetic force and gravitational force. This affirms that mass attracts mass, even if correct, this paper only offers an alternative source for mass-to-mass attraction in our reference frame.
https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812831323_0010
This paper is another attempt to unify electromagnetic force and gravitational force. This affirms that mass attracts mass, even if correct, this paper only offers an alternative source for mass-to-mass attraction in our reference frame.
4. The Electrostatic Model of Gravity - XII International Symposium on Nucleir in the Cosmos - 2012
This paper is so dumb, I couldn't even continue reading it. A short list of errors that jumped out
1. The author seems to think that the centrifugal force is balanced by the electric force. NO! The electron is accelerating and the radiation formula would dictate it would VERY QUICKLY collide with the nucleus. Quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle is needed to understand the stability of the orbits.
2. Seems to think that electrons are in the neutron and are somehow involved in holding the nucleus together
NO! There are NOT electrons in the nucleus. The Neutron is two down quarks and one up quark (neutral) and proton is two up quarks and one down quark (+1).
3. He seems to think there is somehow charge left over, that is he says the proton and electron don't cancel each other... NO! Proton and electron have equal and opposites charges or our universe would literally fall apart!
This paper is so dumb, I couldn't even continue reading it. A short list of errors that jumped out
1. The author seems to think that the centrifugal force is balanced by the electric force. NO! The electron is accelerating and the radiation formula would dictate it would VERY QUICKLY collide with the nucleus. Quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle is needed to understand the stability of the orbits.
2. Seems to think that electrons are in the neutron and are somehow involved in holding the nucleus together
NO! There are NOT electrons in the nucleus. The Neutron is two down quarks and one up quark (neutral) and proton is two up quarks and one down quark (+1).
3. He seems to think there is somehow charge left over, that is he says the proton and electron don't cancel each other... NO! Proton and electron have equal and opposites charges or our universe would literally fall apart!
5. Electrostatic Gravity Mechanism of Action Based on Dieletric Properties of Physical Vacuum and Physical Meaning of Gravitation Potential - National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University - 2016
Click to access Hypothesis-of-the-electromagnetic-nature-of-inertia-and-gravity.pdf
Not only does this article agree that mass attracts mass, but it also agrees that the earth is spherical with a radius of 6.37×10^6 meters and it has a mass of 5.9×10^24kg.
Click to access Hypothesis-of-the-electromagnetic-nature-of-inertia-and-gravity.pdf
Not only does this article agree that mass attracts mass, but it also agrees that the earth is spherical with a radius of 6.37×10^6 meters and it has a mass of 5.9×10^24kg.
6. Gravity as the Second-order Relativistic-Manifestation of Electrostatic-Force - RC GUPTA Unification of Gravitation and Electrostatics - Moi University
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.physics/0505194
This paper hypothesizes that there is a unification between gravity and electrostatic-force. Similar to how electromagnetism and the strong force can be unified under certain conditions. This does not dispute that mass attracts mass. This paper agrees that mass attracts mass. Sorry, flat earthers, this doesn’t help.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.physics/0505194
This paper hypothesizes that there is a unification between gravity and electrostatic-force. Similar to how electromagnetism and the strong force can be unified under certain conditions. This does not dispute that mass attracts mass. This paper agrees that mass attracts mass. Sorry, flat earthers, this doesn’t help.