Three Stages of Magic
First comes The Pledge: The magician shows you something relatively ordinary, like a dove.
Second is The Turn: The magician takes the dove and makes it do something extraordinary, like disappear.
Finally, there's The Prestige: The magician tops that disappearance and makes the dove reappear
First comes The Pledge: The magician shows you something relatively ordinary, like a dove.
Second is The Turn: The magician takes the dove and makes it do something extraordinary, like disappear.
Finally, there's The Prestige: The magician tops that disappearance and makes the dove reappear
1) Setup - 2 Gaussian Surfaces creating a 100 V/m equipotential electric field
ACT 1 - The Pledge: Witsit explaining the Known Electric Field 100 V/m Field
(Witsit the word magician shows you something relatively ordinary)
ACT 1 - The Pledge: Witsit explaining the Known Electric Field 100 V/m Field
(Witsit the word magician shows you something relatively ordinary)
2) Effect - This 100 V/m equipotential somehow causes the downward acceleration of 9.77 to 9.83 we can all measure on earth
ACT 2 - The Turn: Witsit now makes this electric field something extraordinary that is something that can explain why things fall 9.8 m/s^2 but offers no reason how. It's MAGIC!
ACT 2 - The Turn: Witsit now makes this electric field something extraordinary that is something that can explain why things fall 9.8 m/s^2 but offers no reason how. It's MAGIC!
3) There must be a force equation to describe this acceleration and Witsit admits we can use Coulombs Law. This is the Black Swan! RIP I.D.A.
He is doomed either way, because by invoking a 100 V/m electric field, he HAS TO by necessity use Coulombs law. He DID admit this and this now dooms the model, because this is an actual force, that science knows well and we can use science (and common sense) to falsify it!
ACT 3 - The Prestige: Witsit now tops that by saying it can be explained by Coulombs Law
This would have been a GREAT Trick, but his last act fails because Coulombs law cannot make their magical electric gravity re-appear.
This third act kills the performance and the Whole Illusion is exposed.
The Black swan of Incoherent acceleration breaths her last breathe. It was a great performance, but one done by conmen and fools who are now exposed for the charlatans that they really are!
He is doomed either way, because by invoking a 100 V/m electric field, he HAS TO by necessity use Coulombs law. He DID admit this and this now dooms the model, because this is an actual force, that science knows well and we can use science (and common sense) to falsify it!
ACT 3 - The Prestige: Witsit now tops that by saying it can be explained by Coulombs Law
This would have been a GREAT Trick, but his last act fails because Coulombs law cannot make their magical electric gravity re-appear.
This third act kills the performance and the Whole Illusion is exposed.
The Black swan of Incoherent acceleration breaths her last breathe. It was a great performance, but one done by conmen and fools who are now exposed for the charlatans that they really are!
Outline (work in progress ready by tomorrow:
Quick Summary: I am creating levels. Levels 1-3 play their game. Level 4, 5 and 6 are measured reality. We can flesh out all the problems on each level
Quick Summary: I am creating levels. Levels 1-3 play their game. Level 4, 5 and 6 are measured reality. We can flesh out all the problems on each level
Evidence-Based Observations of Gravity
1) Based on mass attracting mass
2) It is always attractive (No Polarity)
3) It cannot be shielded
4) Exhibits a slow 1/r^2 dropoff. (Spherical Symmetry!!)
5) Proportional to mass, not the composition of the materials.
6) Gravitational Acceleration Constant at Sea Levels
7) Defines up and down (Vestibular System Acceleration)
8) All large objects collapse into a sphere (if no other Force)
9) It is very uniform across planet EVEN WITH anomalies
Gravity on the Earth's surface varies by around 0.7%, from 9.7639 m/s2 on the Nevado Huascarán mountain in Peru to 9.8337 m/s^ at the surface of the arctic ocean.
1) Based on mass attracting mass
2) It is always attractive (No Polarity)
3) It cannot be shielded
4) Exhibits a slow 1/r^2 dropoff. (Spherical Symmetry!!)
5) Proportional to mass, not the composition of the materials.
6) Gravitational Acceleration Constant at Sea Levels
7) Defines up and down (Vestibular System Acceleration)
8) All large objects collapse into a sphere (if no other Force)
9) It is very uniform across planet EVEN WITH anomalies
Gravity on the Earth's surface varies by around 0.7%, from 9.7639 m/s2 on the Nevado Huascarán mountain in Peru to 9.8337 m/s^ at the surface of the arctic ocean.
Part 1: Playing Their Game
1. 100 V/m constant, no decreasing with height
2. No variation or polarity reversal
1. 100 V/m constant, no decreasing with height
2. No variation or polarity reversal
1) Charge only No gravity - Different charges fall different rates in different directions!
Acceleration is directly proportional to BOTH amount of charge AND the sign of the charge (+/-/0)
Sign Gives Direction of Acceleration
Positive charges would be attracted to negative ground (fall)
Negative Charges would be repelled (levitate)
Neutral objects (no force)
Amount of Charge gives magnitude to Acceleration
Double the charge double the acceleration.
(Gravity is always 9.8 m/s^2 with both charged objects regardless of charge and neutral objects).
Acceleration is directly proportional to BOTH amount of charge AND the sign of the charge (+/-/0)
Sign Gives Direction of Acceleration
Positive charges would be attracted to negative ground (fall)
Negative Charges would be repelled (levitate)
Neutral objects (no force)
Amount of Charge gives magnitude to Acceleration
Double the charge double the acceleration.
(Gravity is always 9.8 m/s^2 with both charged objects regardless of charge and neutral objects).
|
|
2) Add mass - different masses would fall at different rates.
Acceleration would be inversely proportional to the mass.
Inertial mass does not cancel with Coulombs law
(Unlike gravity where accceleration is mass independent - inertial mass cancels gravitational mass
F/m = F/m = F/m = 9.8 m/s^2
Acceleration would be inversely proportional to the mass.
Inertial mass does not cancel with Coulombs law
(Unlike gravity where accceleration is mass independent - inertial mass cancels gravitational mass
F/m = F/m = F/m = 9.8 m/s^2
3) Electric Fields can be shielded, Gravitational Fields Cannot
Shouldn't we be able to levitate inside a Faraday cage?
Shouldn't we be able to levitate inside a Faraday cage?
So The dielectric constant is a measure of how much the electric field is blocked or shielded in a given material. So for free space the dielectric constant is 1 (which leaves Coulombs law unchanged) and for conductors, the dielectric is infinite (because the electric field is zero), but most materials are somewhere in between.
Here are a few examples of dielectrics in different materials.
Here are a few examples of dielectrics in different materials.
|
|
4) Different materials would all fall differently (magnetic, conductors, etc)
Electromagnetism can affect different objects differently. However, gravity affects everything the same; only the amount of mass and the distance between them count.
Electromagnetism can affect different objects differently. However, gravity affects everything the same; only the amount of mass and the distance between them count.
Part 2: Back to Reality (100 V/m not constant)
A. Decreases RAPIDLY with altitude, near zero at 50 km up.
B. Varies with time of day by 15% (Carnegie Curve)
C. Varies by season (Carnegie Study)
D. Increases by 100-150 fold during a thunderstorm
E. REVERSES POLARITY DURING A THUNDERSTORM
A. Decreases RAPIDLY with altitude, near zero at 50 km up.
B. Varies with time of day by 15% (Carnegie Curve)
C. Varies by season (Carnegie Study)
D. Increases by 100-150 fold during a thunderstorm
E. REVERSES POLARITY DURING A THUNDERSTORM
5) Variations by time of day and season (Carnegie Curve 15%)
6) Variations by altitude and how Electric field is near zero 50 km up.
8 V/m average
Fairly constant for first 1200 meters or so
Nearly Zero at
8 V/m average
Fairly constant for first 1200 meters or so
Nearly Zero at
"The conductivity of the air due to the drifting of ions also increases rapidly with altitude—for two reasons. First of all, the ionization from cosmic rays increases with altitude. Secondly, as the density of air goes down, the mean free path of the ions increases, so that they can travel farther in the electric field before they have a collision—resulting in a rapid increase of conductivity as one goes up."
7) 8.6 million lightning strikes a day... Field changes 100-150 fold and reverses directions. The NAIL in the COFFIN!
8) What about the variations in charge density of the ground? If the negative charge on the ground varies across land and sea and FROM land to sea, why is the downward acceleration the same regardless?
|
Gravity Varies by .7%
|
Electric Fields Varies by over 10,000%
|
9) Strong Nuclear Force CANNOT be explained by Electrostatics
The Strong Force is NOT electromagnetism
Mass Charge = Gravitational Force = Always attractive
Electric Charge = Mass + Electric Charge = Elecromagnetic Force = Attractive or Repulsive
Color Charge = Mass + Electric Charge + Color Charge = Strong Nuclear Force = Three Color Charges + Three Color Forces (Strong Force).
Nuclear Force
Strong interactions aren't electrostatic and that's because they are stronger than electromagnetism. When you look at a proton, it has two valence quarks and two of those quarks have a +2/3 electric charge and the other has a -1/3 electric charge. So why do the two +2/3 charges not repel each other? Because strong interactions holding them together are stronger than electromagnetism.
In fact the structure of most matter in the universe is a result of strong interactions, not electromagnetism.
Electromagnetism at the atomic level deals with things like the Pauli exclusion principle, electron orbitals and things like that, which is important. But when you talk about the fundamental nature of matter, that is strong interactions not electromagnetism.
The Strong Force is NOT electromagnetism
Mass Charge = Gravitational Force = Always attractive
Electric Charge = Mass + Electric Charge = Elecromagnetic Force = Attractive or Repulsive
Color Charge = Mass + Electric Charge + Color Charge = Strong Nuclear Force = Three Color Charges + Three Color Forces (Strong Force).
Nuclear Force
Strong interactions aren't electrostatic and that's because they are stronger than electromagnetism. When you look at a proton, it has two valence quarks and two of those quarks have a +2/3 electric charge and the other has a -1/3 electric charge. So why do the two +2/3 charges not repel each other? Because strong interactions holding them together are stronger than electromagnetism.
In fact the structure of most matter in the universe is a result of strong interactions, not electromagnetism.
Electromagnetism at the atomic level deals with things like the Pauli exclusion principle, electron orbitals and things like that, which is important. But when you talk about the fundamental nature of matter, that is strong interactions not electromagnetism.
Another Funeral Going On
RDD - Relative Density Disequilibrium
**Also atmosphere varies in pressure even at sea level by a couple percent in a given location. This would affect the density of air. Generally, at ground level, the atmospheric pressure doesn't fluctuate by more than a few percent--between 30.50 and 29.50 inches. Because the air is rising when it rains, the pressure will be lower.
RDD - Relative Density Disequilibrium
**Also atmosphere varies in pressure even at sea level by a couple percent in a given location. This would affect the density of air. Generally, at ground level, the atmospheric pressure doesn't fluctuate by more than a few percent--between 30.50 and 29.50 inches. Because the air is rising when it rains, the pressure will be lower.
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 and incorrect assumptions.
Worst for flat earthers:
4) They assume a sphere
5) They do NOT deny mass attracting mass.
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? We can measure the proton dimensions but not the electron. The electron is a probability distribution of charge that has momentum and an equivalent mass. This equation of ratios is wrong on so many levels.
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 and incorrect assumptions.
Worst for flat earthers:
4) They assume a sphere
5) They do NOT deny mass attracting mass.
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? We can measure the proton dimensions but not the electron. The electron is a probability distribution of charge that has momentum and an equivalent mass. This equation of ratios is wrong on so many levels.
1. An Electrostatic Solution for the Gravity Force and the Value of G - Morton F Spears 2010