Thunderbolts Forum

'13-12-13, 01:21 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: Gravitational potential is the speed of light. What do you make of that? This is nonsense. Gravitational potential is a force. The speed of light is a speed. Forces and speeds are related in that a force applied to something will accelerate it, converting the potential to kinetic energy, which is measured in speed (times mass). Then the energy is stored in the momentum of the object. These are all very simple concepts, which support useful predictions the mechanical world. Playing around with mind-bending redefinitions of these axioms is mildly entertaining, for those who enjoy having their minds bent. But there isn't any utility to it beyond that.
'13-12-13, 02:22 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: viscount aero wrote: marengo wrote: I will now repeat a statement of physics. Gravitational potential is the speed of light. What do you make of that? I don't think anyone knows what you mean by that. You've been saying that for months now. When asked to explain it you don't. Maybe you don't understand it either! The gravitational potential is the speed of light' is a statement. If you disagree then you must say why you disagree. If you believe the grav.potential to be something different then please tell me what you think it is. But please do not remain dumbstruck. Marengo, it isn't even a matter of "disagree" or not. What are you saying? True to style you're not explaining what you mean. WTF is "Gravitational potential is the speed of light" Does anyone here know what marengo means by that? Anyone? If so then please edify me. I'd truly like to know what he means.
'13-12-13, 06:37 meemoe_uk	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: Gravitational potential is the speed of light. What do you make of that? This is a red flag quote. It can only come from someone who, for their whole lives, has had neither the slightest interest or ability in physics. But also someone who is craving attention. You see the forums with people having technical debate and you feel left out. So you come in spouting fake debate. This is the main reason why the EU forum is dysfunctional. We can't operate with a zero quality control on who is accepted. Same with most forums. Open door policy just fills every forum with charlatans. The mods are either too demoralized or incapable to detect such nonsense "Moon is the sun " "red is green " " Gravitational potential is the speed of light " Are all acceptable points of view here. You really think IEEE professionals and university staff are going to be attracted to the forum by these inane discussions? There is a reason why the IEEE is the biggest professional body in the world yet you can count on 1 hand the number of quality posters on this forum per week. Until a minimum standard is set, the forums are stuck in mud.
'13-12-13, 07:57 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: Until a minimum standard is set, the forums are stuck in mud. I definitely understand the concern there — look at how much time has been wasted on this thread alone. I just don't know how to conceptualize "minimum standards". I know what I think is correct. But I don't know how to turn that into "standards". IMO, "standards of value" always start out meaning "the good stuff" (i.e., well-formed opinions based on accurate information), but they quickly degrade into standards of agreement with the existing opinion(s). In other words, when evaluating whether a new idea is good or not, we're likely to judge it on the basis of whether it is similar to other good ideas. We should be looking for whether or not it uses a similarly good process, but we actually end up looking at whether or not it's just a similar idea — in other words, we judge it based on whether or not it agrees with out existing opinion(s). And there's the problem. If we already understood everything, the debate would already be over, and we wouldn't even be here, reading and writing about new ideas. So it's a mistake to try to form minimum standards. I think that the solution is to simply sort ideas into types. Then everybody gets to have their own definitions of what they consider to be the "good stuff". All of marengo's posts would go into a folder named "Mind-Bending Alterations of Fundamental Concepts", which would include stuff about time and space getting warped, and all other manner of sophistry. For some people, that's the "good stuff". For other people, that doesn't cut it. So they might prefer the "Prove It or Shut the F Up" folder. But if you don't provide a place for the mind-benders to post stuff, they'll just flood your forum with posts, thinking that eventually they'll get some acceptance. Some boards are set up like that, with a wide range of topics (or even world views) represented, and it's all good, as long as you post it into the right forum. That's the way my site is set up. I disagree with most of what people have posted, but I'll defend to the end their right to post it! Like I said, the important thing is just to get everything sorted out, so that people who require clear reasoning don't have to wade through floods of sophistry (and vice versa ).
'13-12-13, 08:25 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity Well this is at least the mad ideas corner of the forum. It particularly appears lightly moderated save for profanity or ad hominem attacks. Anything goes here virtually. If one wants a technical forum with lots of math and hardcore meat and potatoes physics then this site shouldn't even be visited. To complain that this forum isn't phys.org is silly. To his credit, marengo is interested in physics. As am I. But I don't take it very seriously. It's meant to be fun. That's all. Nobody knows how anything got here or why and they never will.
'13-12-13, 15:36 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity CharlesChandler wrote: This is nonsense. Gravitational potential is a force. The speed of light is a speed. Forces and speeds are related in that a force applied to something will accelerate it, converting the potential to kinetic energy, which is measured in speed (times mass). Then the energy is stored in the momentum of the object. These are all very simple concepts, which support useful predictions the mechanical world. Playing around with mind-bending redefinitions of these axioms is mildly entertaining, for those who enjoy having their minds bent. But there isn't any utility to it beyond that. Let me assure everyone that I am not playing games. Charles Chandler states that the gav. potential is a force. First of all a potential does nothing. It is the gradient of a potential which does something. What it does is to accelerate. Perhaps Charles you could explain what a force is and exactly how it operates across Space. I think you will have some difficulty.
'13-12-13, 15:45 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: True to style you're not explaining what you mean. WTF is "Gravitational potential is the speed of light" Does anyone here know what marengo means by that? Anyone? If so then please edify me. I'd truly like to know what he means. Look, its simple. I mean exactly what I say. There is no need to look any deeper. What you should be doing is looking at the consequences of my statement. Let me explain a little bit. The propagation velocity for electric transients of the Aether we call the speed of light. This not constant spatially. As it is the grav. pot. it is slower close to mass than at infinite distance. Thus we have a field of propagation velocity where the difference to that at infinty is proportional to inverse distance from the centre of mass (taking it to be spheroid in shape). Think about that for a start.
'13-12-13, 15:50 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: This is a red flag quote. It can only come from someone who, for their whole lives, has had neither the slightest interest or ability in physics. But also someone who is craving attention. You see the forums with people having technical debate and you feel left out. So you come in spouting fake debate. You can only make statements like the above if you can demonstrate that I really am talking nonsense. Just because you do not understand the consequence of my statement is not proof that the statement is nonsense. Let me ask you a question. What causes Gravitational Redshift? If you cant answer that then I suggest you try to understand what I am saying.
'13-12-13, 15:54 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity To Charles Chandler. Please read my post to meemoe above. Consider my question re gravitational redshift. In fact I have asked you many time to explain grav. redshift and you have never answered. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION You are just trying to duck it.
'13-12-13, 16:00 marengo	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity viscount aero wrote: Well this is at least the mad ideas corner of the forum. It particularly appears lightly moderated save for profanity or ad hominem attacks. Anything goes here virtually. If one wants a technical forum with lots of math and hardcore meat and potatoes physics then this site shouldn't even be visited. To complain that this forum isn't phys.org is silly. To his credit, marengo is interested in physics. As am I. But I don't take it very seriously. It's meant to be fun. That's all. Nobody knows how anything got here or why and they never will. Thanks for your post. But I am not trying to generate fun. Instead I am deadly serious. If you dont like my theory of gravity then please give your own explanation of gravitational redshift, the bending of light and how gravity acts across Space. And if you cant then I suggest you try to understand what I am saying. This post is meant for all posters.
'13-12-13, 17:10 meemoe_uk	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity CC wrote: I definitely understand the concern there — look at how much time has been wasted on this thread alone. I just don't know how to conceptualize "minimum standards". I know what I think is correct. But I don't know how to turn that into "standards". With a ban hammer. You say the forum used to be far more active 3-5 years ago. Why do you think so many have left? With a topic of electricity in space, it should be easy to attract 20-30 IEEE professionals from a pool of 425,000 and another 20-30 competent physicistsmathsengineersastronomers from a pool of millions. Yet this forum has failed to do this. There is a reason, and I don't see any other than 'inundation with charlatans'.
'13-12-13, 18:16 CharlesChandler	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: To Charles Chandler. Please read my post to meemoe above. Consider my question re gravitational redshift. In fact I have asked you many time to explain grav. redshift and you have never answered. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION You are just trying to duck it. There's just no way that I'm going to get into a discussion of the Pound–Rebka experiment with someone who doesn't even acknowledge that gravitational lensing cannot be measured without taking the mirage effect into account.
'13-12-13, 19:33 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: viscount aero wrote: True to style you're not explaining what you mean. WTF is "Gravitational potential is the speed of light" Does anyone here know what marengo means by that? Anyone? If so then please edify me. I'd truly like to know what he means. Look, its simple. I mean exactly what I say. There is no need to look any deeper. Marengo, I actually want to understand you. I have for weeks. But it is this kind of reply that turns me off to your message. How else am I supposed to understand something unless it is explained to me in greater detail? marengo wrote: What you should be doing is looking at the consequences of my statement. I don't even know what it means so how can I look at the consequences of it?! marengo wrote: Let me explain a little bit. The propagation velocity for electric transients of the Aether we call the speed of light. This not constant spatially. As it is the grav. pot. it is slower close to mass than at infinite distance. Thus we have a field of propagation velocity where the difference to that at infinty is proportional to inverse distance from the centre of mass (taking it to be spheroid in shape). Think about that for a start. Ok thank you! I actually DO (generally) understand that. Why did it take pulling teeth out of your head with pliers to get an explanation?! The first part is just about the EM spectrum @ c. That's basic physics. The 2nd part is about the speed of gravity. Some in the mainstream would disagree with you via "action at a distance" and say that the speed of gravity is superluminal. It has infinite potential.
'13-12-13, 21:13 chrimony	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity meemoe_uk wrote: CC wrote: I definitely understand the concern there — look at how much time has been wasted on this thread alone. I just don't know how to conceptualize "minimum standards". I know what I think is correct. But I don't know how to turn that into "standards". With a ban hammer. You say the forum used to be far more active 3-5 years ago. Why do you think so many have left? With a topic of electricity in space, it should be easy to attract 20-30 IEEE professionals from a pool of 425,000 and another 20-30 competent physicistsmathsengineersastronomers from a pool of millions. Yet this forum has failed to do this. There is a reason, and I don't see any other than 'inundation with charlatans'. First of all, this is the New Insights and Mad Ideas subforum, so if you don't like these topics you should just ignore them. Second, and even more importantly, Electric Universe has its own "mad ideas" in the form of Velikovsky-ian ideas. Not many scientific professionals are going to accept that the planets were doing a mad, electric dance within human memory and then settled into their present-day orbits.
'13-12-13, 21:36 viscount aero	Re: the absurd implied density of moons kills gravity marengo wrote: viscount aero wrote: Well this is at least the mad ideas corner of the forum. It particularly appears lightly moderated save for profanity or ad hominem attacks. Anything goes here virtually. If one wants a technical forum with lots of math and hardcore meat and potatoes physics then this site shouldn't even be visited. To complain that this forum isn't phys.org is silly. To his credit, marengo is interested in physics. As am I. But I don't take it very seriously. It's meant to be fun. That's all. Nobody knows how anything got here or why and they never will. marengo wrote: Thanks for your post. You're welcome. But I am not trying to generate fun. Instead I am deadly serious. I think that's part of the issue here. I suggest you not take this forum very seriously nor any chat forum. If you do you are setting yourself up for a bad time. Chat forum culture by its nature attracts all types of people from sane to entirely whacko. I suggest you enjoy the ride. Otherwise it becomes too "sticky" and personally attached. If you're going to make professional inroads it most often won't be on a chat forum. marengo wrote: If you dont like my theory of gravity then please give your own explanation of gravitational redshift, the bending of light and how gravity acts across Space. And if you cant then I suggest you try to understand what I am saying. This post is meant for all posters. I don't like nor dislike your theory for gravity. I don't even have a full idea of what it is. I don't think I have a full idea of anything you believe. Insofar as my "own explanation" for gravitational redshift.... I don't have one. I didn't even know such a thing existed prior to visiting these forums. I read the researchers words and learn about what they are finding and believe. There is a good amount of documentation about it. Furthermore, I visit these boards for fascination, fun, education and sometimes I enjoy a good debate.