"I have long held an opinion, almost amounting to conviction, in common I believe with many other lovers of natural knowledge, that the various forms under which the forces of matter are made manifest have one common origin; or, in other words, are so directly related and mutually dependent, that they are convertible, as it were, one into another, and possess equivalents of power in their action. In modern times the proofs of their convertibility have been accumulated to a very considerable extent, and a commencement made of the determination of their equivalent forces." -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1845
"The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.'' -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1865
"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908
"Gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1946
Velikovsky, I., Cosmos Without Gravitation: Attraction, Repulsion and Electromagnetic Circumduction in the Solar System, 1946
1. The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. ... Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?And the same is true for the cloud bands on Jupiter which have differential rotation.
2. Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers ... Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.
3. Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.
...
7. Cyclones, characterized by low pressure and by winds blowing toward their centers, move counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. This movement of air currents in cyclonic vortices is generally explained as the effect of the earth’s rotation.
Anticyclones, characterized by high pressure and by winds blowing from their centers move clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere. The movement of anticyclones has not been explained and is regarded as enigmatic.
Cyclones and anticyclones are considered a problem of fluidal motion with highest or lowest pressure in the center. As the movement of anticyclones cannot be explained by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and rotation, it must be concluded that the rotation of cyclones is also unexplained.
a. Gravitation acts in no time. Laplace calculated that, in order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time."If Dr. Velikovsky is right, the rest of us are crazy." -- Harlow Shapley, astronomer, 1946
b. Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent. This is a defiance of space. Newton was aware of this difficulty when he wrote in a letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Leibnitz opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason.
"He [Velikovsky] invents electro-magnetic forces capable of doing precisely what he wants them to do. There is no scientific evidence whatever for the powers of these forces." -- Martin Gardner, mathematician, 1957
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
29 comments:
Okay, gravitation does not dominate over kinetic energy of individual molecules, but it does have a probabilistic effect that is readily apparent in the distribution and the stratification of gases in the atmosphere. Sunlight heats up water molecules, is responsible for the ultraviolet radiation which creates chemical reactions of oxygen, causes the breakdown of methane, pushes the wind currents based on solar heat flux....etc, it is incredibly complex, but gravitation does have an overall effect on the atmospheres of planets and also explains why less massive planets lack atmospheres and why hydrostatic pressures and temperatures determine the state of the phases of gas or liquid of various substances....
" Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation." (Velikovsky 1946)
Quantum_Flux:
Gravity does not determine which planets have atmospheres.
Mars is not that much smaller than Earth, but has almost no atmosphere.
You know what the difference is between the two?
Mars has a very weak electromagnetic field screening it from the solar wind, while Earth has a robust and healthy electromagnetic field.
(hat tip Louis Hissink)
"There is a common mistake made by assuming that electric universe theory rejects gravity - WRONG.
Gravity dominates when the electrical forces become stable, as they do at the present moment.
[The commenter] is correct when he states that gravity holds him on his chair - this has never been denied.
But when electrical forces suddenly change from unforeseen causations, then gravity becomes more or less redundant as the difference in actual force between electricity and gravity is a little more than an order of magnitude.
So gravity dominates in an electrically stable system, but takes second place in an electrically unstable one.
Electric universe theorists have not consigned gravity to the dustbin as many seem to think.
What has thrown out is purely mathematical science with no connection to physical reality, and why we throw out Einstein's relativity theory - his initial error was to make time a physical entity - it isn't. Knock that assumption of its perch and the rest falls down."
The evidence is overwhelming for a broader view of cosmology which includes both electromagnetism and gravity.
So what's holding you back, Quantum_Flux?
Water is H2O=18 g/mol
Air is mainly N2=28 g/mol and O2=32 g/mol with many other heavier and lighter constituents and gases. The only reason why water falls back to the surface of the Earth is because it cools and condenses to a liquid phase (mainly being seeded by relatively heavy, charged dust particles in the air). It is ionized charge that causes the water (a polar molecule) to condense and precipitate out, at which point gravitation and surface tension takes over. However, if it weren't for gravity then there'd be no atmosphere to bring the particles together, there'd be no atmospheric pressures to cause water to go to a liquid state, and water droplets due tend to be less bouyant than the surrounding atmosphere so they fall via gravitation and reach a terminal velocity via friction.
But, I see what you are saying though OIM. Planetary formation is (seemingly) greatly dependent on electromagnetism as being the prime attracter of particles (look at the dust buildup on your plasma or CRT TV screen), largely by solar wind and Birkeland Currents as per the evidence you point out. I've no doubt that this Electric Cosmos Model is what professionals such as Farnsworth and Tesla were picturing in their minds (if not explicitly stated too) and that NASA is perhaps in the process of confirming. This is very exciting to see how, theoretically speaking at least, magnetic fields interact on the solar and maybe even galactic scales.
Although, I do wonder just how incomplete the Big Bang model, and the cosmological stretching of space-time actually is (I've seen the mathematical formalism, and I've seen the experimental details of these by reading the works of Richard Feynman and Roger Penrose). Also, as to what is responsible for the formations of the universe if modern experts such as Hawking are wrong about black hole thermodynamics and the cosmic redshift.
Given Wmap, to what extent can all this be interpreted in line with Electric Cosmos? What does it really mean to deny the existance of the Big Bang? To what extent is the Universe actually expanding, and how old is it? Are these even questions that can be addressed by the evidence at this time?
Also, I stand corrected [Anaconda], it is Mar's weak EM field that caused it to lose atmosphere due to solar wind. Do you think that all achieves escape velocity from gravitational or electrical well potentials then? My visualization is typically of molecules in gravitational orbit around planets, but I think that is somewhat absurd since molecules should easily (and they do) achieve escape velocity with any of the inner planets, so it makes sense that atmospheres are being replenished by solar wind or birkeland currents, perhaps.
OIM, you are saying that electrostatic forces hold water droplets in the air, aren't you? That's consistent with the electrodynamic universe idea and it is the accepted theory.
If there is any reason to rebut or have a difference of opinion with theories such as the ones that you present, I would only want that to be done by reasoned argument. You and I both know where they are incapable of doing that. The thing that has impressed me about Velikovskians is that they will reason things out instead of playing childish games. It tells me a lot about them.
I have a reasoned argument about why gravity does act instantaneously. It is because the gravity that acts on an object is already there. If someone already has a mathematical to prove it, I would like to see it, the proof that gravity does act instantaneously at a distance because it has already propagated, thus its action at a distance is independent of the speed at which it propagates. I think that this applies to an established electrostatic field also.
Please don't confuse the electric field with the electrostatic field - they are quite different and is the source of the confusion for those who reject electric universe theories.
It's electric fields that dominate in space, and the earth's surface.
Luis - There is no difference between an electric field and a so-called electrostatic field. Neither is ther a difference between a magnetic field and an electric field. The only real difference is in one's inertial reference frame. If a charge is at rest relative to you, then it gives off a static field, but if it is moving at constant velocity relative to you then it gives off a magnetic field. If the charge is accelerating or oscillating relative to you, then the field shows up as a photon (which, incidentally, creates it's own medium of propagation). Regardless of the form of electromagnetic energy, it propagates at the speed of light.
Tom - Gravitational fields are thought to propagate at the speed of C too.
Tom,
In response to:
"OIM, you are saying that electrostatic forces hold water droplets in the air, aren't you? That's consistent with the electrodynamic universe idea and it is the accepted theory."
Yes. Exactly.
"If there is any reason to rebut or have a difference of opinion with theories such as the ones that you present, I would only want that to be done by reasoned argument."
Likewise.
"You and I both know where they are incapable of doing that."
=)
"The thing that has impressed me about Velikovskians is that they will reason things out instead of playing childish games. It tells me a lot about them."
=)
"I have a reasoned argument about why gravity does act instantaneously. It is because the gravity that acts on an object is already there. If someone already has a mathematical to prove it, I would like to see it, the proof that gravity does act instantaneously at a distance because it has already propagated, thus its action at a distance is independent of the speed at which it propagates. I think that this applies to an established electrostatic field also."
=)
Tom:
From my experience on this website with commenter, diatreme, your comment, "...they [gravitational model supporters] are incapable of doing that [reasoned arguments]...instead...[they end up] playing childish games. It tells me a lot about them."
Yes.
You would think that with the weight of gravitational arguments (no pun intended) they could make reasoned arguments, but there are so many "holes" in their arguments, gravitational proponents can only chatter among themselves.
Quantum_Flux, you make an interesting point in your discussion of the difference/similarity of electric fields and electrostatic fields (so far, you've made the most reasoned gravitational arguments on this website).
I would like to see more discussion on that particular point, as I understand that issue is where gravitational proponents place a lot of their emphasis.
What point? Gravitation is responsible for rigid solid objects falling, minus the bouyancy and the drag due to air friction forces. Heat thermals from solar heated temperatures on various light absorbing surfaces are also a major driving force for clouds rising or staying aloft. Clouds tend to drift inland on trade wind currents until they hit a high altitude mountain and then run down in the form of a stream or river back to the sea. Or the water could remain on the mountains as snow or seep into the groundwater basins when it flows down into the flatter valley planes.
Quantum_Flux:
"What point?"
Gravitational model proponents, whom I call "big bang, black hole" proponents, claim that all electromagnetic phenomenon observed in space are not the result of "a giant circuit" of electrical currents, but rather are isolated instances of "so-called electrostatic fields" and, therefore, are not able to cause the major phenomenon Electric Universe theory proponents claim are caused by an extended circuit of electrical currents in the Universe.
Therefore, because electromagnetism can't be counted as the cause of these major phenomenon, their theories even with all the "unknowns" are the only possible explanation.
There did I articulate the other side's argument?
Charges are caused by the electron achieving escape energy from the electron orbital shell or probability regions. This is done by introducing enough kinetic energy in the form of heat (phonons) or oscillating EM fields (photons) to ionize the atom or molecule to a charged state (and nuclear fission/fusion occurs at and creates much hotter temperatures as well as more energetic photons such as x-rays or gamma rays).
In effect, however, it is light that transmits electromagnetic fields over long distances, and EM fields are photonic even over short distances such as between chemical charges. This is why I find it bizzare that you assume that light acts as a electral field over longer distances when the planar aspects of photons take over and the spherical aspects become less significant.
However, this might be the way that EM fields act between two distant charged states such as between Earth and the Sun, since the Sun emits the equivalent of billions of nuclear explosions each second and thereby is quite luminous at shorter distances.
Ultraviolet light is very smooth at ionizing lunar-dust and the molecules in the upper atmosphere, whereas the infrared light results in mostly phonons (vibrational heat) being produced in molecules closer to the ground.
However, an electric field will also drive electons along the path of least resistance too, which is what Electic Cosmos is hypothesising with the charged plasma permeating space. Unfortunately for that, it is commonly believed that space is sparce with matter.
It is commonly held belief that Bussard's Ramjet is unfeasible because space is not filled with charged plasma as Electric Cosmos predicts. Maybe it is when star formation is beginning, but the planets and stars suck it all up like dust on a TV screen before life evolves to the level to take advantage of the charged plasma.
Anaconda, I would only object that when they get going they never get as far as actually presenting arguments. It's not so much the holes in the arguments as holes in their heads. I don't know what they're thinking.
Yes, I think that some of Velikovsky's statements can be rebutted by reasonable argument and evidence, and yet I still think that the bulk of his work is correct. He probably got the history right. What people actually see happening should revise physics, not the other way around. Plus, physical theory that is thought correct by the "mainstream" often isn't. It's often misrepresented, deliberately or by mistake, too.
We're not necessarily dealing with theorists at all, but people who want a job in science without knowing any science.
Back to the topic: I think that electrostatic forces may have shaped the orbit of the new Venus, or it could just as easily have been gravitational forces and our understanding is complete. Most likely both. The electrostatic forces may well have the reach.
Quantum_Flux:
As I wrote before, your discussions on this question are the best I've seen defending the gravitational model on the Oil Is Mastery website.
I was hoping another commenter could respond to them (perhaps, Louis Hissink, he is quite informed on Plasma Cosmology).
But like a dog with a bone, I've been chewing on the electric current versus electrostatic field discussion and the "visable light" discussion.
I think I have an answer for you. See what you think.
Regarding the electric current versus electrostatic field discussion:
Quantum_Flux, you posited that there is no real difference between the two descriptions of electromagnetism. That the difference is only one of perspective or "relativity".
I disagree, take for example your example of the T.V. screen, a good example: This is electrostatic electricity, it doesn't "flow" anywhere, the electrons build up on the screen, the more buildup, the farther away from the screen your forearm hair will stand on end, and on touching it the electrons will "flow" into your point of touch (your finger, your forearm), this is called electrical charge buildup and electrical discharge. At the time and point of your touching (or being close enough that the electrons "jump" to a closest point of conductivity) is called an electrical discharge "event".
I'm not clear what characteristics are exhibited by this type of magnetic field as a result of the electrical charge buildup.
But since electromagnetism is scale independent to the 18th magnitude, it seems highly likely this process happens at the solar system level (think of the Earth as a giant T.V. screen) and interstellar level. So, if there is a electrical charge differential between two (or more bodies) and their electromagnetic fields "touch" that creates an electrical discharge.
Electrical discharge is the "flow" of electrons (and charged particles, ions), or electric current.
Electric current is the seeking of stability and equilibrium in a electrical "system" from a condition of instability and disequilibrium at the end of the discharge creating a stable system.
When this electrical discharge occurs, the full power of electromagnetism is "expressed" and electromagnetism becomes the predominate "force" in comparison with gravity.
As Louis Hissink described it:
"There is a common mistake made by assuming that electric universe theory rejects gravity - WRONG.
Gravity dominates when the electrical forces become stable, as they do at the present moment.
[Anaconda edit: Or when electricity is not "flowing", electrostatic fields (electric charge buildup) most likely don't exhibit the "full power" of electromagnetism when it is flowing.]
But when electrical forces suddenly change from unforeseen causations, then gravity becomes more or less redundant as the difference in actual force between electricity and gravity is a little more than an order of magnitude.
So gravity dominates in an electrically stable system, but takes second place in an electrically unstable one."
So, Quantum_Flux, you discussion was incomplete and unintentionally misleading as to the distinction between the two states of electrical energy and plasma in my opinion.
Regarding the "visable light" discussion, again, I disagree with your description:
"Visable light" is not the full manifestation of plasma energy. Just as electrons on your T.V. screen in a state of electrostatic instability and disequilibrium are not visable, so are electrons on a larger scale invisable when not flowing. And more and most important to my hypothesis (Plasma Cosmology), electrons and charged particles (ions) are not always visable when they do "flow".
This is an energy state (characteristic) that has been demonstrated in the plasma physics laboratory.
So, Quantum_Flux, your thesis that visable light is the only manifestation of electric "flow" in the Cosmos is wrong.
That is why detecting 'radiations' not in the "visable light" spectrum is so important because these emissions are evidence of electric "flow" or an electric circuit.
Quantum_Flux, you stated that the general absence of matter in the Universe would prevent the "flow" of this Universal circuit (Plasma Cosmology posits that 99% of all matter in the universe consists of electrons and charge particles).
But that is where the incredible strength of electromagnetism in relation to gravity comes into play (and why the "weak" force of gravity can't work to power the Universe [cause galaxy formation and retention]]).
As stated previously, Electromagnetism is 10^39 more powerful than gravity. That is:
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
000,000,000,000,000 stronger.
And this strength extends beyond the atomic scale distance.
So, Electromagnetism has the needed strength across large distances that gravity does not.
And most important galaxy formation happens as the result of electric flow, or electrical buildup discharge events when electromagnetism is at its strongest. Galaxy retention also is a product of electric "flow" in combination with electric charge buildup in an alternating series of events (alternating, where have I heard that before?).
Please feel free to disagree with this discussion, but please provide scientifically reasoned arguments.
Hahaha, I found this video when researching Cathode Ray Tubes:
How to reverse your monitor scren image
I guess the method that CRT screens use is 2 electron accelerating cathode grids in succession and then 8 oscillatory solenoids (4 horizontal and 4 verticle) to direct and oscillate the flow of the electrons, thereby creating the desired photons in the optical light wavelength spectrum to hit at the desired spots. Anyhow, I forgot what I was defending because I watched this amusing video.
MICHAEL FARADAY, PHYSICIST AND ROCK STAR FOR PLASMA COSMOLOGY
(Doesn't Faraday have a passing resemblance to a younger Mick Jagger?)
But there is another reason Faraday is a "rock star" to Plasmology groupies.
Gravity doesn't explain the rotation of the Earth. Electromagnetism does and the "mechanism" is the Faraday Motor theory of electrical rotation.
It should be noted that Faraday invented the electric motor.
But the Faraday Electric Motor theory of ratational spin posits that the Earth in reaction to the solar wind and Birkeland currents flowing out from the Sun in into the Earth, makes the Earth act as a giant electrical motor.
Gravity is has been assumed to be the cause of the Earth's spin, but there is a lack of evidence to back this theory.
POSTSCRIPT ON FARADAY MOTOR THEORY OF EARTH'S ROTATION
Quantum_Flux:
You got "drafted" into the "defense" of the gravitational model because nobody else seemed willing to "serve" for the theory. Your comments came the closest to a defense (actually a pretty good defense), you used the available "weapons" at your disposal:-)
If the Faraday Motor theory of Earth's rotation is correct, it suggests the magnitude of electrical "flow through" must be quite large (given the mass of the Earth), which also gives an indication of the plasma energy available on Earth for various electrical phenomenon observed, and, perhaps, most important, the electrical energy available to Man should he devise technology to tap into this (electrical circuit) energy source (Nikola Tesla is looking pretty prophetic).
As stated in the previous comment, it has been assumed that gravitational force causes the rotation, but the evidence is skimpy to support that proposition, perhaps, somebody would care to make a defense of the gravitational model's theory of Earth's rotation.
How have you ruled out photons as the means by which electrical fields act at a distance, or any distance?
I'm sorry, an electric field is just a barrage of photons with a frequency close to zero (minimal energy) and a wavelength near infinity, this exchange of photons causes electricity to flow in wires. I should have told you that.
Anyhow, start oscillating that charge which is releasing the 0 frequency field and you end up with a barrage of higher energy photons orthogonal to direction of motion that is dependent on the accelerations involved. That photon production occurs mainly because the vaccuum of space (magnetic permeability of free space) impedes the flow of charges and hence you get your arcing solar coronas or Birkeland Currents if the voltage potential between Planets and the Sun is great enough to overcome the impedance (something that does happen all the time apparently).
However, another way to overcome that impedance is to shoot off in the form of photons and to travel on it's own photonic frequency spectrum.
Hmmmm, you think that space is filled with plasma being left behind from those Birkeland Currents because of this electrical impedance?
Quantum_Flux:
I'm reluctant to rule out anything, but at this point it would seem photons are a result and not a cause of electromagnetism.
Electrons and charged particles (ions) are the relavant elemental particles of electromagnetism.
Quantum_Flux states: "[A]n electric field is just a barrage of photons with a frequency close to zero (minimal energy) and a wavelength near infinity, this exchange of photons causes electricity to flow in wires."
I'm not inclined to subscribe to the above statement.
No, there is something more than "photons" acting in an electric field. And the second half of your statement is flat-out wrong.
Elecricity flows in wires because of the charge differential between the positive and negative poles in the circuit, thus dictatng the direction (positive to negative) in the flow of electrons.
Electrons are what travel in wires, not photons.
Quantum_Flux, you are seriously getting off into the ditch focussing on photons. Electrons and ions are the name of the game in electromagnetism.
But the idea your present, "magnetic permeability", is very important: "Pure iron and some alloys have relative permeabilities of 100,000 or more."
Electrons flow easily across iron (electricity is a self-reinforcing process, it feeds on its own feedback), this makes sense and sheds light on the fact that iron is such a good chemical catalyst and conducive to electricity.
As has been noted in other posts on the Oil Is Mastery website, iron plays a direct role in the catalytic processes of abiotic oil formation.
Apparently iron plays the catalytic role because it's conductive to electricity which furnishes part of the energy component necessary to precipitate the thermo-molecular bonding of carbon and hydrogen. Also, iron likely contributes available electrons to facilitate molecular bonding from a chemistry perspective.
Chemistry and electrical energy are closely related.
The impedance of space (vacuum) apparently is much lower than commonly thought, perhaps because there is some "medium" (the ether?) that Man doesn't understand.
Perhaps, electrical current creates its own "medium" of some type.
Quantum_Flux states: "[Y]ou think that space is filled with plasma being left behind from those Birkeland Currents because of this electrical impedance?"
I don't know.
Good question.
SECOND POSTSCRIPT ON FARADAY MOTOR THEORY OF EARTH'S ROTATION
Frankly, I didn't do justice for the Faraday Motor theory of Earth's rotation considering its vast implications as an alternative theory to the gravitational model or it's possibly being a "window" to Nikola Tesla's idea of tapping into Earth's electrical circuit.
So, here is a much better presentation of theory and the difficulties of the gravitational model for Earth's rotation.
Louis Hissink's Crazy World: What causes the Earth's Rotation?, June 22, 2008.
It's the least I can do for the "rock star" of Plasmology.
There is a continuom or spectrum from electric field (0 hz photons) and gamma rays (ultra high hz photons).
The reason why gas particles bounce off of each other is because the interactions of the electric fields up close, which falls near the photon spectrum of 0 hz. One charge is pressing against another like charge via electric fields, AKA repulsion is a zero energy transfer event, but momentum is conserved in these inelastic real gas collisions. In non-real gas collisions, the momentum is conserved but the energy is transfered via what is called "phoNons".
Quantum_Flux:
Makes sense, if limited to fluid and gas dynamics, but plasma behaves differently than gas.
This difference in behavior between the two states of matter (the others being liquid and solid) causes end results of different character.
Quantum_Flux, you still haven't made your case: "There is a continuom or spectrum from electric field (0 hz photons) and gamma rays (ultra high hz photons)."
I'm willing to consider the idea, but I have to have some scientific authority based on analysis of measured observation.
Can you provide that?
That idea belongs to Richard Feynman.
Electric fields (mythical existance since all charges are dynamic) are just photons with infinitely long wavelengths
That photon has a really long wavetrain and hence really long probability region so acts more like a field than a wave which has a higher frequency or a particle which has exremely high frequency (like a gamma ray).
Feynman on Electromagnetic Fields and there Oscillations
Maybe Feynman already solved that one and a lot of us haven't read it yet.
It is incorrect to say that a field travels at the speed of light. A "field" is more or less static. Changes in the field travel at the speed of light.
Post a Comment