Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Plasmatic

Regulars
  • Posts

    1960
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Everything posted by Plasmatic

  1. Kevin Brown : Your argument is sound. I would add the false concepts of infinite existents such as "god". I like to simply say the definition of god as such is a false concept. Nowhere to go because god is everywhere, and therfore theres only one place and so no place. Nothing to know because god knows everything and therfore theres only one [itself]. Nothing to do because to do something there must first be something not done by itself. All these things go along with the whole "if there was only one color could you see anything." If theres only one thing theres nothing. The antidote to Platonic nonesense in a nut shell. Existence requires multiplicity and knowledge of said multiples requires counsciousness with valid ,entity differentiating senses.
  2. Perhaps someone can explain to me how "charge" is "essential" to the "concept" of matter? Charge is essential to the concept of electrodynamics! However this is not the only problem I have with the topic , simply the reason I call it anti-conceptual . However Im still reviewing the subject in order ti properly integrate it.
  3. I suspect folks like Plasmatic just scour the web for any forum or mention of anything relating to Einstein, Dark Matter, or Anti Matter so they'll have an opportunity to spew thier psuedoscience. He only has 7 posts and all were in this thread and an Einstien one. Seems very troll like to me. Actually I just discovered the forum when i posted first , and thought it would be appreciated by fellow Objectivist. I see even amongst "reasonable" folks Ad hominem is popular. I hesitated to respond because of the disappointing childlike display of personal attacks , as well as the need to dig into certain rebuttals responsibly. I'm an avid Objectivist enthusiast and cant believe the level of compartmentalization in relation to Physics here. I make no claims to expertise My statement that antimatter was anti conceptual is based on the fact that "anti" is "non essential" ITOE PG. 94. to the concept as it is attributed to matter, as far as I can see. If I charge my hair by rubbing a balloon on it , it doesn't become "anti" hair.
  4. Atlas51184 Posted 21 minutes ago I watched the whole video several weeks ago because "electric universe" kept showing up on this forum. The movie doesn't help your case. It claims that gravitational phenomena can be explained using electricity, but it never gets more specific than that. It is a bunch of vague claims backed up only by the claim that a flash before an impact with a comet is supposed to prove something. To say that the whole universe is connected by intergalactic electric circuits is so vague that it is completely meaningless. You may be unaware that the video is associated with the Book THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE . The ELECTRIC SKY is another one.The video is intended to draw folks to the book and the website for further investigation. Essentially they are saying that we can explain the universe with out the postulation of imaginary other dimensions , and invisible "Dark" matter , with the inclusion of every day electrodynamics as proven in Laboratory Plasma Physics. The reason the Electric force is more "important" in the context of celestial mechanics is because ionized particles are influenced by a force 10 to the 39th power more powerful than gravity. And the shapes galaxies take are demonstrable electromagnetic properties inherent in the identity of plasmas. Mechanical forces alone do not explain the dynamics we observe in space. Adrians statement that "its a shame i don't know" is quite dramatic as I'm simply an individual seeking to integrate his concepts with reality. I make no claims of professional expertise. I didn't respond in large part , because the level of ad hominem displayed , was frankly undesirable as to a discussion. Adrian you seem unaware that the theory I'm pointing at claims that many "text books" are incorrect , and specifically the ones related to plasma. Alfven himself claimed as much. You may be interested in this link in relation to your citation: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Critical_velocity However your initial claim was that magnetic fields were created thermally, if I'm not mistaken. I will investigate your citation further however.
  5. Hi Adrian Im sorry for the lazy responses before on certain issues. I asked you to cite an example on your assertion on plasma because you made a claim yourself without support. Hannes Alvfen is known as the father of PLasma Cosmology and MegnetoHydridynamics.When he won his nobel prize he himself cautioned as to his earlier work misleading scientist to refer to plasma as having "frozen in " magnetic fields apart from Electric currents. I am not the author of such theories , and your comments do not reflect this , as you are responding as if Greg is asking you what I think. If you have support for thermal creation of magnetic fields apart from electric current I invite you to submit it . Ill respond to your citation. Ive supplied several links for your review . Granted some of the Anti matter topic i found need to review futher and am still doing. My main point was "anti" as is used in this context is "non essential" to the concept. If I charge a metal rod it does not become a "Anti" rod but a rod with a positive charge . I still await your submition on this topic of Plasma.
  6. I just wanted to add a few clarifications. Perhaps this quote from : http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromce...-history01.html may help to illuminate how I approached Antimatter in the same context as Dark matter and Black holes: "It was the beginning of the 20th century, an exciting time when the very foundations of physics were shaken by the appearance of two important new theories: relativity and quantum mechanics. In 1905 Albert Einstein unveiled his theory of Special Relativity, explaining the relationship between space and time, and between energy and mass in his famous equation E=mc2. Meanwhile experiments had revealed that light sometimes behaved as a wave, but other times behaved as if it were a stream of tiny particles. Max Planck proposed that each light wave must come in a little packet, which he called a "quantum": this way light was not just a wave or just a particle, but a bit of both. By the 1920s, physicists were trying to apply the same concept to the atom and its constituents, and by the end of the decade Erwin Schrodinger and Werner Heisenberg had invented the new quantum theory of physics. The only problem now was that quantum theory was not relativistic - meaning the quantum description worked only for particles moving slowly, and not for those at high (or "relativistic") velocity, close to the speed of light. In 1928, Paul Dirac solved the problem: he wrote down an equation, which combined quantum theory and special relativity, to describe the behaviour of the electron. Dirac's equation won him a Nobel Prize in 1933, but also posed another problem: just as the equation x2=4 can have two possible solutions (x=2 OR x=-2), so Dirac's equation could have two solutions, one for an electron with positive energy, and one for an electron with negative energy. But in classical physics (and common sense!), the energy of a particle must always be a positive number! Dirac interpreted this to mean that for every particle that exists there is a corresponding antiparticle, exactly matching the particle but with opposite charge. For the electron, for instance, there should be an "antielectron" identical in every way but with a positive electric charge. In his Nobel Lecture, Dirac speculated on the existence of a completely new Universe made out of antimatter! From 1930, the hunt for the mysterious antiparticles began..." . As you can see they are linked as to the source of their development. I'm not interested in a debate just some food for thought for you all. "QUOTE (Plasmatic @ Jan 18 2008, 05:14 PM) This new electrical concept suggests that Newton's "universal constant of gravitation," or "G," is a dependent variable. G depends upon the charge distribution within a celestial body. Highly charged objects like comets look like solid rock, yet they have a gravitational field that suggests they are fluff-balls. Adrian Hester replied: Huh? They look like big clouds in the sky, and they act like small bundles of rock with large accretions of ice and other frozen matter--which is what you'd expect, since that's what they are." Actually Comets are not dirty ice balls as thought: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01...ise-that-c.html Which is what the Plasma Cosmologist have been saying for decades: http://www.thunderbolts.info/pdf/ElectricComet.pdf Hester replied: "Nonsense. You need high temperature is all, as you'd know if you actually knew any plasma research." I would love for you to supply a link for this statement. I assure you Hannes Alfven would disagree! Megan Snow wrote: "Considering that David was talking about ANTI-matter, not DARK matter, what the heck does your reply even mean? I remember reading in Discover magazine more than twelve years ago about a scientist who produced anti-hydrogen for the first time in a laboratory setting. It was expensive and difficult to create the properly controlled conditions, but it was done. If you can't tell the difference between the words "anti" and "dark". the only mystical quack around here is you. Go play somewhere else until you get your brain straightened out." I was drawing the comparison of the many claims for confirmation of "dark matter" and "black holes" to the claim that antimatter has been proven to exist. In any case your response is unwarranted as I am only here to discourse not demand compliance or imply personal attacks. There is no Moral to any story that ends with a justification for Ad Hominem. Be back later.
  7. Thanks for that Dragon. I am dismayed at this unreasonable ad-hominem. How do "anti" and "dark" and the confusion[alleged or not] equal one being a mystic? Non contextual ,maybe even arbitrary but Mystic??? Wow Ill get back to you soon Dragon.
  8. Indeed I was addressing two problems Dark matter and anti matter, I should have been more explicit. "Furthermore, scientists have made anti-matter in the labs and used it to try produce energy. The problem with that matter anti-matter reaction is that due to the high cost of artifically producing anti-matter makes it to expensive with current technology. With that method it costs the same amount to power a light bulb as it does to power a large city. But the important thing is that they could detect it. They wouldn't of been able to do the experiment if they couldn't detect it. It can't be an anti-concept if it was made in the labs and experiemented with." Please do supply an example. Almost every day a new article proclaiming such "proof" comes out about dark matter and blackholes[an equal fairytale} http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=qwk0u6cc all based on assumptions. Ill demostrate in another post soon. Consider these words: " neutron combines the charges from a proton and an electron in a barely stable resonance, which decays in minutes. Its decay must have a cause and may involve an interaction with a neutrino. However, when combined with protons it seems neutrons form a new stable resonant structure that serves to bind the protons electrically despite the overall positive charge on the nucleus. The notion that matter can be annihilated when normal matter meets antimatter is a confusion of language. Matter can neither be destroyed nor created nor can matter be exchanged for energy. Einstein's E = mc2 refers to mass, a property of matter, not matter itself. The mathematical relationship represents the restructuring of resonant systems of charge. What seems to happen in "annihilation" is that the complementary resonant charge structures of a particle and its antiparticle combine so that almost all of the internal energy is radiated away and the combined charges form a new collapsed particle of low internal energy. The most collapsed form of matter is the neutrino, which has a vanishingly small mass. However, the neutrino must contain all of the charges required to form two particles – a particle and its antiparticle. This symmetry explains why a neutrino is considered to be its own anti-particle. A neutrino may accept energy from a gamma ray to reconstitute a particle and its anti-particle. "Empty space" is full of neutrinos. They are the repositories of matter in the universe, awaiting the burst of gamma-radiation to expand them to form the stuff of atoms. The weird "zoo" of short-lived particles created in particle accelerators and seen in cosmic rays are simply unstable resonant systems of charge. The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass implies that gravity is also an electrical force. Before Einstein, some noted scientists were suggesting that the gravitational force between neutral particles might ultimately be due to electrical polarization within the particles. In 1882, Friedrich Zöllner wrote in the introduction to his book, Explanation of Universal Gravitation through the Static Action of Electricity and The General Importance of Weber's Laws, "…we are to conclude that a pair of electrical particles of opposite signs, i.e. two Weberian molecular pairs attract each other. This attraction is Gravity, it is proportional to the number of molecular pairs." Indeed, gravity can be represented as the sum of the radially aligned electric dipoles formed by all subatomic particles within a charged planet or star. This new electrical concept suggests that Newton's "universal constant of gravitation," or "G," is a dependent variable. G depends upon the charge distribution within a celestial body. Highly charged objects like comets look like solid rock, yet they have a gravitational field that suggests they are fluff-balls. And as they discharge they suffer what is euphemistically called "non-gravitational" accelerations. The extreme weakness of the force of gravity, compared to the electric force, is a measure of the minuscule electric dipolar distortion of nucleons. Gravity cannot be shielded by normal electrostatic shielding because all subatomic particles within the gravitational field respond to the dipolar distortion, whether they are metals or non-metals." http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df "At the level of the atom, the Electric Universe model takes a lead from the work of Ralph Sansbury, an independent New York researcher. Foremost is the simple recognition of the basic electrical nature of matter and the primacy of the electrostatic force** in matter interactions. It also rests upon the simple assumption that the proton, neutron and electron are composed of smaller charged particles, orbiting each other in a classical sense in stable, resonant orbits. That is, the energy exchanged between those sub-particles in elastic deformation during each orbit sums to zero. Being charged, the sub-particles interact via the electrostatic force. A simple calculation shows that the sub-particles that form an electron must travel at a speed far in excess of the speed of light - some 2.5 million light-years per second, or from here to the far side of the Andromeda galaxy in one second! So the electrostatic force must act at a speed which is almost infinite on our scale for the electron to be stable. It is the stable orbital resonances of these sub-particles, both within and between particles that give rise to the phenomena of protons, neutrons, electrons and atoms. Other denizens of the particle "zoo" are merely transient resonant states of the same charged sub-particles. The so-called "creation" of matter from energetic photons is an illusion in which pre-existing matter is reorganized into new resonant states that give the impression that a particle has suddenly materialized. Antimatter is a misnomer since it too is formed from the same sub-particles as "normal" matter except that the total charge is mirrored. Matter cannot be created or annihilated." http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=11 You do understantd that "spacetime" in the relativistic sense requires the reification of time and space,as well as the postulation of another "dimension ". http://www.quackgrass.com/time.html http://www.quackgrass.com/space.html Indeed we can and have seen plasma every where in space as well as vast magnetic fields. You cannot have such fields wthout electric current. I do realize that im suggesting revolutionary stuff that requires the review of the foundation of most of astrphysics/cosmology today. I can only say if you will give the information your consideration you will see that it is indeed objective,and that you may indeed reach a higher level of integration as a result of discarding false concepts. Visit these sites and investigate for your self. http://www.holoscience.com/index.php http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm http://thunderbolts.info/home.htm PlasmaResources.com http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html Plasma cosmology has its roots deep in experiment, Birkeland ,Alven ,Perrat, all with pear reviewed papers for you to consider Im al little sparse for time but I invite all of you to the thunderbolts forum to discuss this topic with us. http://thunderbolts.info/thunderbolts_forum.htm I warn you indeed we do have our quacks and mystics also so consider each post in its context.
  9. Hi Thales, would you consider that you are implicitly [at least] suggesting that "Reason" has a different function when applied to science. I say this because one does not require , an "euquipment" of some other kind of reason, when applying the proccess of differentiation,and intergration. The concept of non contradiction is a fundamental part of Objectivism ,as well as the Primqcy of existence. All one needs is to grasp the axioms ,to understand that the concepts professed by Gravity only cosmology and quantum physics are inherently ,unobjective ,arbitrary,and contradictory. Occam tells us not to multiply things beyond necessity, when we can demonstrate the very phenomenon as seen in space without the projection of arbitrary, non existen anti concept, we shouildnt.[not to mention participating in faulty meatphysics and episemology} By the way have you ever gone into a non- objectivist forum and championed Capitalism? This is exactly what happens when one approaches the forums you mentioned. Im here to announce that those who give primacy to objectivity and the need to integrate their concepts with ,reality have a new outlet of expression. Its time to take back the ground stolen by the mass of unfocused minds,who have differed there judgment to "authorities"eintein etc.] whimsical mystics [pythagorean loving mathemeticians etc.]. Prescisly because it has been set up that if one doesnt learn to swim in overly anstract mathematics "first" they cannot qualify" to comment on "science" never mind that Equations say nothing without the context of Objective reality.
  10. Anti-matter is an anti conceptual abstraction,invented to justify ,the absence of the required matter to exert the amount of gravity,Enstiens fantasies required, In other words the equations are 95% lacking in their attempt to describe the world. This dark matter anti matter non sense,is a result of the strongest and most pervasive force,being absent from Newtons gravity only Celestial mechanics. Which Einstein was building on. Now 99.9 percent of matter in the universe is in the 4th state,Plasma. An electrified gas which has been used in the laboratory to demonstrate the very things you see in your telescopes. Laboratory Plasma physics,Has far surpassed the gravity only cosmology in its efficacy as a successful model of the heavens. And it does this without the imaginary other dimensional fantasy abstractions of the quantum mystics!! http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/...dark-matter.htm http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/...assumptions.htm
  11. Im amazed that any objectivist would consider Einsteins theory as science. Gravitational lensing is nonsense. engineers "bend light every day in the lab using Induced Electric Dipole Red shift. Einstein and Newton where missing the most powerful force in nature in their celestial mechanics. Electricity is 10 to the 39th power more powerful than gravity. Space is filled with Plasma ,which is ionized gas. When gas is ionized it virtually ignores gravity,[which is by no means constant]. The current state of physics is a result of reified mathematical abstractions,and the failure to dismiss arbitrary unfalsifiable "theories" Big bang cosmology is mysticism. Something from nothing is impossible.[creation ex nihilo] The current B>B> expansion model require the postulation of 95 % invisible undetectable[by prescribed definition other dimensional] Dark [imaginary] abstractions. The Idea that "space time" can "warp" into another dimension ridiculous[not to mention unfalsifiable.] However there is a new breed of folks who give primacy to existence and objective referents in science! http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=66b0jzyh http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill2.htm http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arc...816glmisuse.htm http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arc...22lensagain.htm http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arc...arp-galileo.htm http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arc...09tangleweb.htm
×
×
  • Create New...