D H

Is this statement part of your theory? Yes, it is a part of the "theory", and it is compete nonsense. Suppose all of the supposed dipole moments in the Sun line up. This will make the supposed gravitation force normal to the dipole moment fall off as a 1/r3 force. This is contrary to the well-observed fact (since Kepler) that gravitation is a 1/r2 force. Worse, gravitation is not isotropic. It is zero along the dipole moment. Now suppose the supposed dipole moments are oriented randomly. At least gravitation is isotropic in this case: It is zero everywhere. Of course it does. Its just that your idea of straight and the universe's idea are two different things. Rather than ramble on for another thousand words, I'll just present those thousand words graphically.

I do have a personality defect in that I have very hard problem suffering a certain class of people gladly. You may not have, but that nonsense is all over that web site you are touting. Okay then. I'm glad your mythology has an origin of the Earth legend. It is of course completely in contradiction of geological evidence, but what the hey -- its a nice story. I have asked before, and I'll ask again, how does your theory explain the fact the planets have moons?

It breaks down because an infinite series can have a finite sum, something of which Zeno was unaware. That lack of knowledge is not Zeno's fault; he was born 2000 years or so too early. In math, [math]\frac 1 2 + \frac 1 4 + \frac 1 8 \cdots = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac 1{2^n} = 1[/math]

So, in synopsis, you are claiming that Kepler was wrong. Not just wrong, but never right in any domain wrong. Newton's theory of universal gravitation is similarly completely wrong. Special relativity is similarly completely wrong. General relativity is similarly completely wrong. Cosmology is similarly completely wrong. Astronomy is similarly completely wrong. Quantum mechanics is similarly completely wrong. And that is not all. Geology is similarly completely wrong. Those stupid geologists are completely wrong about the age of the Earth. In particular, plate tectonics is completely wrong. Biology is completely wrong. There are no fossils, for one thing. In particular, Darwin is completely wrong. Despite all of the (oops) mathematics behind those theories, despite the scrutiny of the best minds of the centuries, and despite the immense amount of confirming evidence in favor of those theories, those theories are somehow completely wrong. In their favor, you want us to adopt an ill-specified and untestable concept that throws out all, and I mean all, of science. If you were anything close to the free thinker you claim to be you would know exactly where the stinking pile of nonsense lies.

You are free from thought? That is most certainly how it appears. No, he hasn't. He has made some very vague predictions, some of which, if you twist the words and look at them squinty-eyed enough, just might appear to be correct. They are no different than Nostradamus "predictions". There is nothing of substance there. This is just regurgitated Velikovsky nonsense.

There isn't much reliable information about it. You can read the wikipedia article on plasma cosmology. Plasma physics is a very real field, and is essential to understanding how stars work. (Then again, so is gravitation.) The problem with some plasma physicists and electrical engineers is that they think there field of study represents the one and only true force that dominates the universe. They forget that electric charge comes in two flavors, positive and negative, and that as a whole a star, a galaxy, and the universe are electrically neutral. That makes electromagnetism a local phenomena. While gravitation is locally weak, there is no such thing as negative mass. This makes gravitation a much greater force on cosmological scales than is electromagnetism.

So, if you aren't here to argue or criticize, then why is it that all you have done is to argue and criticize? Oh, please. That article was talking about incredibly small anomalies that the current models of gravitation may or may not be able to explain. Your electric universe model has much bigger problems. It can explain very little of we observe. Please explain how planets can have moons without invoking gravitation. Suppose general relativity is shown to be false in some domain. Would this mean it is completely wrong? No. It just means it is not universally true. General relativity has been tested and retested. The evidence in favor of it is huge. Would this mean that your pet theory is true? No. Your pet theory has to stand on its own. Just because the prevailing theory is shown to be wrong does not make yours true. In other words, evidence against general relativity does not qualify as satisfying speculations rule #1.

Sorry, but there is *no* validity to the electric universe concept. Zero, zip, nada, nil. On the other hand, general relativity stands as one of the most precisely verified concepts in all of physics, right up there with quantum mechanics. Will something supplant general relativity? Almost certainly. While special relativity has been reconciled with quantum mechanics, general relativity has not. That reconciliation will entail some modifications to both theories. However, those modifications will have to agree with observed fact. That means that in the domains where general relativity has already been tested, the new theory will be indistinguishable from general relativity in terms of predicted outcomes. Note that the same thing happened with relativity and quantum mechanics with regard to Newtonian mechanics. In the domain of the not too small, not too fast, and not too massive, relativity and quantum mechanics both become indistinguishable from Newtonian mechanics in terms of predicted outcomes of some experiment.

That sounds like complete gobbledygook. Grammatically incorrect gobbledygook, to boot.

One simple poke at this simple looking problem reveals that it is an extremely hard problem. [math]a^3+b^3=c^3[/math] is a high-order Diophantine problem. High-order Diophantine problems are notoriously hard to solve. Unlike linear Diophantine problems, there is no generic technique for solving high order ones. [math]a^4+b^4=c^4[/math] is a different high-order Diophantine problem. [math]a^5+b^5=c^5[/math] is yet another. Fermat's Last Theorem in one swell foop says that an infinite number of high-order Diophantine problems have no solution. That makes this an extremely hard problem. When they read the enormous amount of work done on the problem. Or when they read Kummer's proof that the theorem is true for all regular primes. Of course, it is now a solved problem, but the solution was not to look at equations of the form [math]a^n+b^n=c^n[/math]. The solution came from tying the problem to an apparently unrelated problem of modular equations.

The Hill sphere of a planet is [math]r_H = \sqrt[3]{\frac {m_p}{3m_s}}[/math]. This makes the Earth's Hill sphere about 1/100 of an AU. An object of negligible mass orbiting the Earth at the Hill sphere radius will have a period of about 7 months. However, the Hill sphere is but an approximation. As a rule of thumb, stable prograde orbits have a semi-major axis that is half the Hill sphere; for retrograde orbits the stable orbital radius increases to about 2/3 of the Hill sphere radius. The Moon is orbiting the Earth at about 1/4 of the Hill sphere radius, so its orbit is currently stable. The Moon will have to retreat to about twice its current distance before it is at risk of being stripped from its orbit about the Earth. However, this has nothing to do with whether the Sun has a perturbing influence on the Moon's orbit. The Sun has a marked perturbing influence on the Moon's orbit. Regarding resonances: Even though the current ratio of the Moon's orbital period about the Earth to the Earth's orbital period about the Sun is not an integer, there have been many times in the past where the period was an integral number. Just because such events have occurred does not mean that there were any resonating consequences of those events. You need to find some coupling between the perturbative effects and the fact that the Moon's orbital period about the Earth and the Earth's orbital period about the Sun are related by some simple integral (or rational) ratio. As far as I can tell, you won't find any. What you will find is that some claim that perturbations induced by various planets have resulted in some resonant feedbacks that acted to change the Moon's eccentricity. In particular, two events in the past may have had the evection coupled with the planetary perturbations caused by Jupiter and Venus. Matija Ćuk, "Excitation of Lunar Eccentricity by Planetary Resonances", Science, 318:5848 (12 October 2007) http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~cuk/papers/eccentricity.pdf But maybe not: Ian Garrick-Bethell and Maria T. Zuber, "A primordial origin for the lunar eccentricity", in preparation http://web.mit.edu/iang/www/pubs/primordial_eccentricity_rev14.pdf

The triple point pressure of water is 611.73 pascal. The atmospheric pressure on the Moon is 2 to 3 ×10-10 pascal. It is physically impossible for liquid water to exist anywhere on the surface of the Moon, Cyclonebuster.

The Moon essentially has no atmosphere. Water cannot exist on the Moon except in those deep, never-lit craters at the Moon's poles.

There is no liquid water on or in the Moon. There is water ice in never-sunlit craters near the Moon's South Pole and a tiny amount of H2O bound up in chemicals away from the poles. Regarding the water ice in those craters: The reason that ice exists in those craters is because essentially no energy reaches the bottoms of those craters. The bottoms of those craters are very, very cold, about -300 F. There is no life on the Moon, and that is a good thing. It means that the Moon is free from constraints and it is ours to use.

From this thread: From your simple ideas thread: These two statements are, to me, a signs that you are pursuing things in the wrong order. You really should try to understand the basics of algebra and number theory before you dive off the deep end into Fermat's Last Theorem. The first one: Given positive rationals a and b, define sets A and B to be the sets of all rationals x such that [math]a^n+b^n-x^n[/math] is negative (set A) or positive (set B). This is a Dedekind cut that defines the real number c that is the positive real solution to [math]a^n+b^n=c^n[/math]. The second one: "Trial and error" is not needed. Pick any positive integer n and some other positive integer m that is greater than n. Then [math]a=m^2-n^2,\,b=2mn,\,c=m^2+n^2[/math] is a Pythagorean triple. This is Euclid's construction (i.e., it is ancient).

All I need to disprove this is one counterexample, such as n=3, a=0, b=2, c=2. Exclude trivial solutions (one or more of a, b, or c is zero) and that is essentially just a restatement of Fermat's Last Theorem.

Actually, I misread the OP. I read it as cypress complaining about someone else calling cypress on the carpet for using a logical fallacy, that such complaints are ad hominem attacks. On re-reading, it appears that cypress is complaining about someone making a true ad hominem attack against cypress. If that is the case, the rules of the forum are clear: We want a civil discourse here. The correct recourse is to report the post in question. The moderators do take such complaints seriously if they are valid complaints.

Exactly. Or you could eliminate c, yielding [math]a^n+b^n=1[/math]. This is the portion of the Ln-norm unit circle (aka squircle) that lies within the first quadrant. Fermat's Last Theorem is equivalent to saying that there are no rational solutions to [math]a^n+b^n=1, a>0, b>0[/math] for integer n>2. Not that you are going to get far with this. You will not find a simple proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Think of it this way: Fermat never did have his mystery proof. He worked on the cases n=3 (successfully), n=4(also successfully), and n=5 (not successfully) after he wrote his famous note in the margin. Now if he did have a universal proof, why did he work on n=3, 4, and 5 after the fact? Why did he fail in his endeavors to prove the conjecture for n=5? A huge number of mathematicians, all much more well-versed in number theory than any amateur, worked on the problem and failed. It is the height of hubris for someone lacking any training in number theory to think they can prove something as hairy as this theory turned out to be. What I said above, that you will not find a simple proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, is not really true. Conceptually, the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is now trivial. Here it is: If the Taniyama-Shimura conjecture is true, then Fermat's Last Theorem is true per Ribet's theorem. The Taniyama-Shimura conjecture is true by the modularity theorem. QED. What does that mean? Not much, at least not to me. I am not a PhD mathematician who specialized in number theory. If you want to understand the proof you will need to pursue higher mathematics. Pure math, not applied math.

Please. Someone saying your argument is weak and violates logic is a personal attack?

Surely not.

The flaw in your reasoning, Tony, is that [math]\sqrt[3]{728}[/math] is not a rational. There are no rational solutions (a, b, c) to [math]a^n+b^n=c^n[/math] where n is a positive integer > 2.

Play the game at http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/. The concept of the game: You are presented with the titles of two papers. One paper is a real one posted at the arXiv. The other is fake, with the title automatically generated using a context-free grammar. Your job: Guess which is the real paper. After guessing you will be presented with another pair of titles. You can play as long as you want. The game will give you a ranking based on your ability to ferret out the real physics papers versus the fake ones. Do slightly worse than 50% and you are ranked "worse than a monkey". Dropping down even lower makes you a "ninth year graduate student". Do well and you will rise from "better than a monkey" to the rank of "undergraduate" and may eventually achieve the rank of "Nobel prize winner".

You are uttering nonsense.

You appear to be thinking that gravitational potential energy increases with proximity to a planet. It doesn't. First off, potential energy, in any form, involves an arbitrary constant. Two typical choices for this constant regarding gravitational potential energy are: Arbitrarily set the potential at the surface of the planet to zero. With simplifications, this leads to the PE=mgh relation used in elementary physics. Arbitrarily set the potential at infinity to zero. With simplifying assumptions, this leads to the PE=-GMm/r relation used in slightly more advanced physics. Let's look at the former convention, PE=mgh. This is an approximation that is only valid when the height h is much, much smaller than the planet's radius. Note that potential energy decreases as the height above the planet decreases. Suppose you release an object with zero initial velocity at some height h0 above the ground. If it weren't for air friction, the object would gain speed as it falls per conservation of energy, ½mv2+mgh=mgh0. This means the velocity of this object is given by v2=2g(h0-h). This is exactly the same result that obtains from assuming a constant gravitational force of mg directed downward. Now let's use the latter convention, PE=-GMm/r. This assumes the planet has a spherical mass distribution (i.e., density is a function of distance from the center). Note that once again potential energy decreases as the distance to the planet decreases. Suppose you release an object with zero initial velocity at distance r0 from the center of the planet. If it weren't for air friction, the object would gain speed as it falls per conservation of energy, ½mv2-GMm/r=-GMm/r0. This means the velocity of this object is given by v2=2GM(1/r-1/r0). This is exactly the same result that obtains from assuming a gravitational force of GMm/r2 directed toward the center of the planet.

For example, from the surface of the Moon to the surface of the Earth? I'm trying to clarify what you mean here. If your native language is not English, I understand the difficulty in expressing yourself in a foreign language. On the other hand, if your native is English, you very much need to practice and improve your writing skills. Are you talking about gravitational potential energy? You need to be specific, as there are several forms of energy. What exactly do you see as the problem here?