Static electricity, it's all capacitance?

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
Time dilatation has not been proven. A environmental effected clock has been proven. Your clock changes with the environment.

The vibration of a dipole is affected by the local environment/force fields. That is gravity and other accelerations. If you use charge frequency....not dipole frequency....gravity will have no effect. And if you turn the charge perpendicular to the direction of acceleration......the acceleration should have little....if any effect on rotational rate.

All of your "time dilation" goes away.

Even if we can not build a stable clock.......DOES NOT PROVE time dilation. It proves you can't build a stable clock.

My proof is this discussion. I can give reasonable, physical, real causation for all phenomena.......while modern science is not even aware of, let alone can answer my simple fundamentals questions.

Example.......all gravitational theories must show and explain an elliptical obit. But that orbit isn't there. So our theory proves something that doesn't exist. These are the proofs we get today. Do you believe they know what they are talking about when they explain an atom? Do you really believe that crap? They use math to prove non existent things all the time. You can mathematically prove everything and disprove everything when you vary constants at will. That's not science...it's fraud.

Modern science gave up on physical science 100 years ago. And have been chasing a false math tale ever since to save reputations and funding.

Math is 2D. And math is linear. Nature is 3D. Nature is angular. It's geometric. It provides balance.....to asymmetries.
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
8,043
The thing I have a problem with is people saying, just because this is how things work on Earth, is the way physics are every where. We haven't been "everywhere" so it's all just theory or guessing that it is like that there.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
7,732
Why should earth have special physics? It seems like common sense (proven by experimental data from the most sensitive instruments we can build) they should be the same everywhere. All our predictions about gravity waves and other interstellar events from stars on the edge of the known universe agree with the theory that earth is not special and the laws of physics are the same everywhere. Copernicus said we are not special in 1543 so it's not a new idea.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17298.Simply_Einstein_Relativity_Demystified
 
Last edited:

BR-549

Joined Sep 22, 2013
4,938
Earth has the most special physics in the universe......very unique. All of earth is a living system. The physics on the planet is like none other.

All of the physics on this planet is entangled and controlled by life. Even the atmosphere and soil.

Earth is a very special place.
 

KL7AJ

Joined Nov 4, 2008
2,226
I find there is usually a reverse relationship between understanding thephysics of electricity and Tesla fanboydom. The more you know the less you believe in his unscientific theories.
Actually, Tesla understood a great deal of physics and electromagnetics...it was all his latter-day groupies who warped his science beyond all recognition. They did the same thing to Ernst Lecher, who is undoubtedly spinning in his sarcophagus as a result. Look up Lecher Wire......and all the STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID stuff all the new age wacko idiots are saying the Lecher wire can do. EEEESH.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
7,732
Actually, Tesla understood a great deal of physics and electromagnetics...it was all his latter-day groupies who warped his science beyond all recognition. They did the same thing to Ernst Lecher, who is undoubtedly spinning in his sarcophagus as a result. Look up Lecher Wire......and all the STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPIDSTUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID stuff all the new age wacko idiots are saying the Lecher wire can do. EEEESH.
Sadly he seemed to only understand the physics of the 1890's, ignored the work of Maxwell and didn't revise this theories as our knowledge of electromagnetism increased.
The IEEE said it best in their obit.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1694723/
This theory of the transmission of radiofrequency energy is at variance with that now accepted-and Tesla was never able to bring his plans to fruition.
If his theory was at variance with the physics and electromagnetics of 1943 and today nothing has changed to that variance I would say he's mistaken on his theories.
 
Last edited:

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
7,849
Why should earth have special physics? It seems like common sense (proven by experimental data from the most sensitive instruments we can build) they should be the same everywhere. All our predictions about gravity waves and other interstellar events from stars on the edge of the known universe agree with the theory that earth is not special and the laws of physics are the same everywhere. Copernicus said we are not special in 1543 so it's not a new idea.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17298.Simply_Einstein_Relativity_Demystified
Hi,

I dont think it is Earth itself i think it is the fact that this part of the universe could be 'special' and i put that in quotes because we have to define what special means in physics. For example, if you think the speed of light is special in our part of the universe you may be right due to at least one experiment that showed that it was different in another part of the universe. Now why this was i dont know, perhaps the space in that part of the universe is stretched more than around here, but for me i take the speed of light to be constant anywhere until more is done to look at this. But is 'special' really the speed of light is different or the space itself is a little different? That's why i think that 'special' has to be defined when we talk about this. Without dong that, everything can be called 'special' For example, it's special that we have dirt while the Sun has no dirt :)

I usually keep to the same view as main steam science, but the question does come up as to what could be happening at distances very very far from us because we dont have any direct experience with distances so far off. We have absolutely NO timely experiment that is directly related to something more than about 90 astronomical units from our Sun (the termination shock point). Everything we see in the sky is often the way it existed far in the past. This brings up the question could things be a little different as we get farther out from the Sun.
We do know from theory though that other Universes, if they really exist, can be very different from our own, so could there be a transition region. Two universes that are close to each other could have a transition region where our universe changes into the other universe and vice versa, where things could be a mixture. From what i have read, gravity still seems to apply even between universes somehow, and there is some speculation that this is why we see some unusual movements in one part of our universe way out there. If that is a place where this mixture occurs, that could be a very different place. Does this matter to us? Probably not right now, because we are so far from that place that we may never see that even as a civilization.

To grasp the possibilities all we have to do is think back. Think back to the times when Man did not believe in so many things that we hold to be true today. Then one day someone proved it, then it became our reality. Until that time though we held on to the preconceived notions as a matter of convenience, not really as a matter of fact.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
7,732
Hi,

I dont think it is Earth itself i think it is the fact that this part of the universe could be 'special' and i put that in quotes because we have to define what special means in physics. For example, if you think the speed of light is special in our part of the universe you may be right due to at least one experiment that showed that it was different in another part of the universe. Now why this was i dont know, perhaps the space in that part of the universe is stretched more than around here, but for me i take the speed of light to be constant anywhere until more is done to look at this. But is 'special' really the speed of light is different or the space itself is a little different? That's why i think that 'special' has to be defined when we talk about this. Without dong that, everything can be called 'special' For example, it's special that we have dirt while the Sun has no dirt :)
My definition of 'special' is the same as yours. Is it possible, Sure but there just is no evidence for it. For us to be in a 'special' area of this universe that would mean there are Preferred_frame(s) of reference.

Every experiment to see if Lorentz invariance (in electromagnetics) fails at even at the smallest and highest energy levels has shown Lorentz invariance to be correct and in exact accordance to SR.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/lorentz.cfm
Lorentz invariance expresses the proposition that the laws of physics are the same for different observers, for example, an observer at rest on Earth or one who is rotated through some angle, or traveling at a constant speed relative to the observer at rest. It is the pillar of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, and every experiment conducted to date has verified it. But if new, far more sensitive experiments could detect a very faint field pervading the cosmos, one that exerts a force on electron spin, that would topple Lorentz invariance.

Fortunately for fans of Einstein and relativity, a new experiment at the University of Washington sought just such an anomalous field and came up empty-handed, even at an unprecedented energy scale of 10-21, according to results presented at the APS April Meeting in Dallas. This is the most stringent search to date (by a factor of 100) for violations of Lorentz invariance involving electrons.

There is always the possibility of something weird.
http://nautil.us/issue/42/fakes/is-physical-law-an-alien-intelligence
 
Last edited:

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
7,849
My definition of 'special' is the same as yours. Is it possible, Sure but there just is no evidence for it. For us to be in a 'special' area of this universe that would mean there are Preferred_frame(s) of reference.

Every experiment to see if Lorentz invariance (in electromagnetics) fails at even at the smallest and highest energy levels has shown Lorentz invariance to be correct and in exact accordance to SR.

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/lorentz.cfm



There is always the possibility of something weird.
http://nautil.us/issue/42/fakes/is-physical-law-an-alien-intelligence
Hi again,

Yeah i always like to say that we cant imagine what is out there in it's entirety because we have not yet imagined what we need to imagine in order to set the proper framework for what we will be able to imagine after that. It's not a joke either, we really need to wait for some things as we have no other choice. Until then we do have some fascinating possibilities.

There are some that believe that anything will be possible once we gain the proper insight. For example controlled star formation. They even class the level of intelligence based on what that civilization can achieve.

One thing we know for sure, and that is like an amazing coincidence, that in this period of time we have the ability to examine our own fish tank, the one we ourselves live within, and try to determine where it came from and where we came from and what basic rules apply and so on. It's amazing that we can even think about this stuff.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
7,732
[QUOTE="MrAl, post: 1200104, member: 241810"

One thing we know for sure, and that is like an amazing coincidence, that in this period of time we have the ability to examine our own fish tank, the one we ourselves live within, and try to determine where it came from and where we came from and what basic rules apply and so on. It's amazing that we can even think about this stuff.[/QUOTE]

Just like lizards.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
7,732
Probable, possible?

Due to random quantum fluctuations there is a negligible but non-zero chance that a 1968 pink convertible could materialize out of thin air in my driveway.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
7,849
Hi,

This is an older thread but i see now that there are experiments that some people do not know about yet. I guess they just have not read about them yet.

The speed of light is an interesting idea and probably misunderstood. Let me explain.
In our part of the universe, the speed of light is some 'constant'. Is this constant the same in another part of the universe? Maybe so, but measuring the speed of light in another part of the universe relative to our own place in the universe would show that the light there is moving at a different rate than here. How can that be possible?
Isnt it true that the universe is expanding? That is, the space itself is expanding.
Now we also know that the farther out you go the faster it expands. There could be things moving away from us at 100 times the speed of light but we would never be able to measure them. But i thought nothing can go faster than the speed of light? Well apparently that is a local observation not a universal one. That allows us to say that nothing goes faster than the speed of light.
So buckle up buckaroos Things go faster than the speed of light. It's too bad if you dont like it. However, we are lucky that we usually dont care if something a trillion miles away is going faster than we would like to see mostly because it has less to do with our reality than something right in our own solar system.
Some day our galaxy will probably collide with another one but right now it is still too far away to care too much about. Will man survive to see this catastrophe? We'll have to leave that question for another time :)
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
7,732
Big deal, lots of things can move faster than light. This has been known for a long time and is not a new revelation shown by modern experiments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Superluminal_travel_of_non-information

The speed is light a common name for the speed of Causality.
Causality is one of the most fundamental and essential notions of physics.[46] Causal efficacy cannot 'propagate' faster than light. Otherwise, reference coordinate systems could be constructed (using the Lorentz transform of special relativity) in which an observer would see an effect precede its cause (i.e. the postulate of causality would be violated).

Causal notions appear in the context of the flow of mass-energy. Any actual process has causal efficacy that can propagate no faster than light. In contrast, an abstraction has no causal efficacy. Its mathematical expression does not propagate in the ordinary sense of the word, though it may refer to virtual or nominal 'velocities' with magnitudes greater than that of light. For example, wave packets are mathematical objects that have group velocity and phase velocity. The energy of a wave packet travels at the group velocity (under normal circumstances); since energy has causal efficacy, the group velocity cannot be faster than the speed of light. The phase of a wave packet travels at the phase velocity; since phase is not causal, the phase velocity of a wave packet can be faster than light.[47]

Causal notions are important in general relativity to the extent that the existence of an arrow of time demands that the universe's semi-Riemannian manifold be orientable, so that "future" and "past" are globally definable quantities.
 
Last edited:

xox

Joined Sep 8, 2017
496
Hi,

This is an older thread but i see now that there are experiments that some people do not know about yet. I guess they just have not read about them yet.

The speed of light is an interesting idea and probably misunderstood. Let me explain.
In our part of the universe, the speed of light is some 'constant'. Is this constant the same in another part of the universe? Maybe so, but measuring the speed of light in another part of the universe relative to our own place in the universe would show that the light there is moving at a different rate than here. How can that be possible?
Isnt it true that the universe is expanding? That is, the space itself is expanding.
Now we also know that the farther out you go the faster it expands. There could be things moving away from us at 100 times the speed of light but we would never be able to measure them. But i thought nothing can go faster than the speed of light? Well apparently that is a local observation not a universal one. That allows us to say that nothing goes faster than the speed of light.
So buckle up buckaroos Things go faster than the speed of light. It's too bad if you dont like it. However, we are lucky that we usually dont care if something a trillion miles away is going faster than we would like to see mostly because it has less to do with our reality than something right in our own solar system.
Some day our galaxy will probably collide with another one but right now it is still too far away to care too much about. Will man survive to see this catastrophe? We'll have to leave that question for another time :)
We have measured the light coming from distant objects. The speed is always the same.

You can't even inch toward it anyway. No matter how much you have accelerated, the speed of light as measured from within your reference frame will always be the same. Which means you could be coasting along at 99.9% c and you would *still* note that light moving from one end of a ship to the other would nonetheless be 100% c, not (c + 0.999 c) or (c - 0.999 c).

The expansion of space does effect the frequency of light, though not its speed.
 

Delta prime

Joined Nov 15, 2019
574
One commonly known fact in physics is under the theory of relativity, there are actually three ways that objects can move: At the speed of light. Slower than the speed of light. Faster than the speed of light. Physics is the greatest playground I've ever been in or not been in.Ha Ha! :p
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
7,849
We have measured the light coming from distant objects. The speed is always the same.

You can't even inch toward it anyway. No matter how much you have accelerated, the speed of light as measured from within your reference frame will always be the same. Which means you could be coasting along at 99.9% c and you would *still* note that light moving from one end of a ship to the other would nonetheless be 100% c, not (c + 0.999 c) or (c - 0.999 c).

The expansion of space does effect the frequency of light, though not its speed.
Hi,

Not sure where you get your information, but the expansion rate increases the farther out you go it is not constant.

I never said the speed of light with respect to nearby objects was not apparently constant.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
7,849

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
7,732
So? You imply that nobody could state anything without it being a new fact.
Washington was the first president of the USA. Oh my god we knew that :)
So what was the point of your post? To rehash questionable old points on a dead thread? It worked.
 
Top