I believe the universe is electric

[EMField]

Good, because the above is false. It does not take energy to move; it takes energy to accelerate.

=Uncool-

 

And movement in a magnetic field creates electrical currents, so maybe your theories are wrong as everything seems to radiate energy. The Earth both speeds up and slows down in its orbit around the Sun, it gains energy and uses energy to keep its orbit.

http://farside.ph.ut...res/node73.html

 

These are standard cosmology math for charged particles. The universe is made up of 99% of a charged medium.

http://www.nasa.gov/...atmosphere.html

 

So any movement of a conducting material in a magnetic field creates electrical charge.

http://farside.ph.ut...res/node85.html

http://www.astronomy...40-5474af1661a3

 

But it will all get sorted out soon when the NASA mission to study plasma starts bringing back data. Then we can get on with science and drop all the fairy dust.

But NASA already knows the answer.

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/solarmag.html

Edited August 19, 2012 by EMField

[MigL]

None of the things you say makes any sense !!!

 

Apparently all our technology is based on false assumptions. But this will all be sorted out as soon as the NASA mission to study plasma starts bringing in data.

Oh, by the way, the NASA mission is based on technology which YOU seem to think, is false, how does that make sense ????

If you want to prove me wrong, then go ahead, post the math that says there is no conservation of mass-energy. I would think even if too lazy, you'll do it just to shut-up people liike me, ACG52 and uncool, just to name a few, and I'll post a public apology to you.

[EMField]

None of the things you say makes any sense !!!

 

Apparently all our technology is based on false assumptions. But this will all be sorted out as soon as the NASA mission to study plasma starts bringing in data.

Oh, by the way, the NASA mission is based on technology which YOU seem to think, is false, how does that make sense ????

If you want to prove me wrong, then go ahead, post the math that says there is no conservation of mass-energy. I would think even if too lazy, you'll do it just to shut-up people liike me, ACG52 and uncool, just to name a few, and I'll post a public apology to you.

 

 

No, NASA's mission is based upon technology YOU seem to think is false. I believe the universe is electric, and 99% of it is plasma, an electrified medium. YOU believe it is all held together gravitationally and no electricity happens in space, contrary to NASA's declaration that the entire universe is filled with this electrified gas. Yet YOU give not one consideration to these electrical and magnetic events. Even though you and I both know that only electricity causes magnetic fields, only electricity accelerates particles and only electricity causes x-rays, etc.

 

 

But YOU refuse to accept that scientifically proven fact and still want your fairy dust when it is totally uneeded.

 

 

 

1) How are particles accelerated in laboratories?

 

2) How are x-rays created in laboratories?

 

3) How are magnetic fields created in laboratories?

 

 

 

Ignore electricity if you want, but you use it every day to create the same things we observe in space, and then try to explain it away because you understand NOTHING about plasma.

 

 

 

Theory says that to move a charge from point A to point B requires energy. Then theory says that to move a charge around a closed loop requires no energy at all, even if it is 10 times the distance from point A to point B. Then theory also tells you that conductors moving in closed loops in magnetic fields create electric current. Yet you can not grasp the fact that this electric current is what makes the charge seem to require no energy to traverse the closed loop, because the energy used to start its movement is recovered from the electromagnetic induction traveling in the magnetic field. Then theory wants to tell me that photons are the charge carriers for the EM force. Are different photons aborbed for charges going in straight lines verses charges moving in closed loops??????? It must be so since photons add no energy if the charges are traveling in a straight line, but add energy if charges are traveling in loops. Maybe you just need to figure out why charges traveling in closed loops in a magnetic field only generate current, while those traveling in straight lines don't.

 

And as for the moderator comments, I for one will not stand by while you try to teach unfounded and unproven science. Make sense and I'll gladly conform, until then its just fairy dust. And all that fairy dust already has an answer, EM forces.

 

 

Do you really want me to believe that charges traveling in closed loops magically take no energy to move them around the loop, but takes energy to move a charge in a straight line?????????

Edited August 20, 2012 by EMField

[MigL]

So now not only energy conservation laws are false but also thermodynamic laws, since you seem to think that certain electrical processes require no energy, a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

Have I got a pepetual motion machine to sell you !!!

 

Incidentally spinning plasma in the accretion disk of a black hole, at nearly the speed of light gives rise to the polar particle and radiation jets, not only of X-rays but even Gamma rays. If seen head-on these are called quasars. And since the galactic centre black holes were more active when the universe was young because galaxies had just formed, they were more numerous at great distances or earlier times. A lot of the galactic cores have settled down with stars simply orbiting the central black hole unless something upsets the orbits and the black holes start gobbling up stars again.

 

The best particle accelerators are black holes or even neutron stars, they have immense magnetic fields. The reason we use electomagnetic accelerators is because gravity is so weak at the scales we are using. Its just much more practical.

 

Does this answer your questions or are you gonna keep the blinders on.

[EMField]

So now not only energy conservation laws are false but also thermodynamic laws, since you seem to think that certain electrical processes require no energy, a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

Have I got a pepetual motion machine to sell you !!!

 

Incidentally spinning plasma in the accretion disk of a black hole, at nearly the speed of light gives rise to the polar particle and radiation jets, not only of X-rays but even Gamma rays. If seen head-on these are called quasars. And since the galactic centre black holes were more active when the universe was young because galaxies had just formed, they were more numerous at great distances or earlier times. A lot of the galactic cores have settled down with stars simply orbiting the central black hole unless something upsets the orbits and the black holes start gobbling up stars again.

 

The best particle accelerators are black holes or even neutron stars, they have immense magnetic fields. The reason we use electomagnetic accelerators is because gravity is so weak at the scales we are using. Its just much more practical.

 

Does this answer your questions or are you gonna keep the blinders on.

 

It is your math not mine. I believe all charges whether going in a straight line or in a closed loop require energy to move them. I believe in energy conservation, you apparently do not. It is your science that says charges traveling in closed loops require no energy to do so, contrary to your own laws of conservation of energy. Please explain to me why charges going in closed loops are said to require no work to move them in that closed loop? You have NO explanation other than magic. As a matter of fact standard cosmology attempts no explanation of that fact, they ignore it in every description. Why?

 

The best particle accelerators is electric currents. You have not one shred of evidence that anything other than electric currents accelerate charged particles. Please, show me one laboratory experiment where you have accelerated particles using something other than electricity. Gravity could only accelerate a particle towards the source, not away. Science has never accelerated a particle without electric fields, NEVER. Every black hole you claim exists supports electrical events, not gravitational. Only electrical currents generate x-rays and gamma rays, exactly what you see streaming from so called black holes. Get rid of your fairy dust and start doing science.

Edited August 21, 2012 by EMField

[CaptainPanic]

Aren't you two having a simple miscommunication?

 

I think that EMField is saying that a particle requires energy to move (i.e. kinetic energy). To have no energy would mean it is at zero Kelvin, motionless.

I think that MigL is saying that a particle does not require a constant input of energy (power). If it would receive a constant input of power, but wouldn't accelerate, it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

But I am putting words into your mouths. Anyway, please consider that you might be having a miscommunication. Try to be more clear yourself, rather than attacking the other.

 

Also, as far as I have understood the electric universe, this theory says that it can be possible that there are also electric and magnetic forces in the universe that govern the motion of the planets, stars and galaxies, rather than only gravity. I do not know enough about it to claim one or the other, but from a layman's point of view, I think it is plausible that electricity/magnetism plays a role at the really big scales too. It seems to be present at every other scale - from atomic up to planetary scale.

[studiot]

You should both read the works of Alfven and Lerner.

 

One of these won a Nobel for his input.

Edited August 21, 2012 by studiot

[Ronald Hyde]

I believe that electricity and magnetism play an important role in Nature, but it's a great oversimplification

and will result in many errors of description, to simply say that that is all there is to it.

[EMField]

Aren't you two having a simple miscommunication?

 

I think that EMField is saying that a particle requires energy to move (i.e. kinetic energy). To have no energy would mean it is at zero Kelvin, motionless.

I think that MigL is saying that a particle does not require a constant input of energy (power). If it would receive a constant input of power, but wouldn't accelerate, it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

But I am putting words into your mouths. Anyway, please consider that you might be having a miscommunication. Try to be more clear yourself, rather than attacking the other.

 

Also, as far as I have understood the electric universe, this theory says that it can be possible that there are also electric and magnetic forces in the universe that govern the motion of the planets, stars and galaxies, rather than only gravity. I do not know enough about it to claim one or the other, but from a layman's point of view, I think it is plausible that electricity/magnetism plays a role at the really big scales too. It seems to be present at every other scale - from atomic up to planetary scale.

 

 

I am saying that according to standard theory it takes x amount of energy to move a charge from point A to point B in a straight line and at the end the charge will have less energy of x than it started with. Yet this same theory says that this same charge if moving in a closed loop requires ZERO amount of energy to move any amount of distance and at the end this charge will have the same amount of energy it started with. That is what standard theory says, that no work is required to move a charge in a closed loop.

 

 

I am saying this is not correct. That it requires energy to make a charge move whether it is in a straight line or a closed loop. That the reason it appears that charges traveling in closed loops require no energy is beacuse through electromagnetic induction it gains the same amount that it used to complete the loop. Otherwise you would be implying that charges magically require no energy to move in a closed loop, but do in a straight line, as standard theory states.

 

 

This is because standard theory has no answer, because to their reasoning it is better that it magically took no work, than to admit electric currents were generated from nothing. Yet at the same time they admit that electromagenetic induction creates electric currents. Contradictions at every turn.

[Greg H.]

Do you really want me to believe that charges traveling in closed loops magically take no energy to move them around the loop, but takes energy to move a charge in a straight line?????????

 

There's nothing magical about it. That's what the math says. If you think the math is wrong, you need to provide math of your own (or link to some) that refutes the accepted math and indicates where and why it's wrong.

[EMField]

There's nothing magical about it. That's what the math says. If you think the math is wrong, you need to provide math of your own (or link to some) that refutes the accepted math and indicates where and why it's wrong.

 

No, the math says it ends up the same amount of charge when it ended as when it started. Humans then theorized that this meant it took no work. They then admit to magnetic induction, that movement of a charged particle in a magnetic field creates electric currents, i.e. charge. Yet the charge has the same amount of charge before, it does not have excess, nor does it have a deficiency. The common sense answer is the math shows it gains energy as well as losses energy. Instead you want me to believe the math says it took no work. This is what the math says:

 

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node85.html

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node70.html

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node32.html

 

Your entire theory rests on the fact that you can possibly have a fixed charge. As if those protons and neutron inside the nucleus of an atom where rooted in place and not spinning. In theoretical math, but in real life it doesn't work that way.

 

And this is for your black holes:

http://www.cscamm.umd.edu/tiglio/GR2011/Syllabus_files/EinsteinSchwarzschild.pdf

 

Which the formula you see today for black holes they claim is Schwarzschild's is certainly not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric

[JohnStu]

I doubt the medium in the universe is electric, or charged. a totally charged medium means a lot of things. but so far, no observations of "charged" influence in the universe.

 

 

 

much of the stuff around electromagnetism is still mystery at the fundamental level, so you might be partially right

 

 

 

The interesting thing about the universe is that it takes energy to move a mass. Since energy is mass, and mass is energy. That sentence can be altered to it takes mass to move energy. Quite funny