/sci/ - Science & Math

>Rewind to Le Sage’s theory of Pushing Gravity
>Believe that the universe is filled with subtle particles moving rectilinearly at very high speeds
>These particles are so small the majority of them pass through matter when they interact with it
>Some impact the matter and pass energy to it, forcing it into motion in a direction in line with the impact.
>Matter can be thought of as porous on this small scale, density being variations in that porosity
>When two bodies are close together, they essentially shield each other from being impacted by these particles on the sides closest to them
>See link: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
>Most notable natural philosophers like Faraday, Heaviside, Tesla, Steinmetz, and Dollard all talked about electromagnetic phenomena as motions and strains in a medium the referred to has the Aether
>The three most well-known examples of technology we have for interacting with or leveraging this medium or aether are (1) The Induction Motor, (2) The Transformer, (3) The Antenna. None of these have any effect of gravity
>These Electro-magnetic-mechanical devices manipulate fields to create an intended affect
>How would the field have to be manipulated to create an anti-gravity effect?
>If we assume gravity is of the nature of that which is presented by Le Sage, what must be done is one of two things. Note that when we are standing on earth the planet is shielding us from the particles coming up from underneath us so that the ones coming down from above dominate creating a net downward force, (1) The streams of particles coming down on us from above must be redirected around us or an aircraft so that they are less than the impacts coming from below or (2) the particles coming up from underneath need to be focused so that their intensity overcomes the stream of particles coming down from above.
>Can this be accomplished with a powerful magnetic field? Would the field have to be of a specific shape?

>>11938467
>>11938469
As it stands Anti-Gravity is impossible unless you also want to open up to the idea of "Reactionless Drives", which then means that warping spacetime is possible, meaning that Alcubierre and FTL would be feasible.

As it stands, aside from /X/, antigravity is either impossible or beyond our current range of physics, let alone engineering.

>>11938472
Lmao thanks for addressing the actual content of the posts and not just parroting the same talking points. I have to deal with the mainstream models every single day at work, I'm not denying them I'm presenting a different point of view. Why are modern scientists so unimaginative? Why does serious?

>>11938475
>Why are modern scientists so unimaginative?
Why are pseudo-scientists unable to do proper experiments to verify their theories?

>>11938467
nice green text anon I've been deep in this neck of the woods as of late. I'll post some additions.

>Unknowingly reintroduce the ancient ideas of the Aether while simultaneously trying to disprove its existence
>Spacetime IS the Aether, they are different terms for the same substance

I've noticed the same thing, Einstein himself in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCm6eLP9zRw&feature=emb_logo

>The three most well-known examples of technology we have for interacting with or leveraging this medium or aether are (1) The Induction Motor, (2) The Transformer, (3) The Antenna

Let us not forget Tesla's seminal natural media patents!

https://patents.google.com/patent/US685954A/en

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ce/14/92/3ce62069e6b80c/US685953.pdf

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c6/c4/0c/98ad26936cba1f/US685955.pdf

>>11938514
The relevant introduction hear is part of the experiments and devises of incredibly high potential and frequency.

>>11938521
Which is a great segway into comprehending how this baby super charges small particles of tungsten and creates the death ray

>>11938514
The bonus side quest is figuring out the relevant papers on the 'luminferous aether'

>>11938526
and here touches on the relevent phenomena. Scalar waves,

pic related overview
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bahman_Zohuri/publication/327447483_Scalar_Waves/links/5b968d04299bf147393b7d18/Scalar-Waves.pdf

my favourite paper so far https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andre_Waser/publication/237501522_Electrodynamics_with_the_Scalar_Field/links/5684009808aebccc4e0fd950/Electrodynamics-with-the-Scalar-Field.pdf

In short, we neglect to define the pressure wave in the electromagnetic field

you can indeed couple em fields with spacetime, but it's very very difficult and subtle.

>>11938535
Enter Bohm Aharonov, and the idea of primacy of the potentials. and how we ascribe realness to phenomena in electrodynamics.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.03089

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5409/541e111b39d0dba368ff6671284a76fd3066.pdf?_ga=2.162096505.472129980.1595729230-94114609.1590177805

>>11938552
Pretty cool physics actually, it really wrestles with the pontying theorem and describes the energy flow observed in field regions E=B=curl A = 0 and really opens the question of what we're really getting rid of when we use guaging to simplify the maths

Dawg I already did it you just gotta use a halbach array my dude it’s not a big deal just amplify it honestly lmao just gotta contain these amplified field and you get the rest haha yo unknown and all :)

>>11938556
Who i've found described this the best is in the work of L. M Hively

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lee_Hively/publication/255000872_Toward_a_More_Complete_Electrodynamic_Theory/links/55f9c6c808ae07629deecb70/Toward-a-More-Complete-Electrodynamic-Theory.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lee_Hively/publication/331983861_Classical_and_extended_electrodynamics/links/5d6d8458299bf1808d61b9a3/Classical-and-extended-electrodynamics.pdf

which explains more deeply how the 4 gradient of the magnetic vector potential is guaged away

Op is off-base pretty steeply,sadly,he's going off into a Tesla rabbit hole,but the idea of figuring out how to use electromagnetism to fuck with spacetime is legit.

This is what we will do it with.

>>11938586
No dawg you want to harness the weak force by amplifying the surrounding magnetic fields bro this is never gonna get over even 50T dude come on now bro I’m embarrassed dude, have you even considered how to feed this puppy like wow son :/

>>11938467
>Did not claim any mechanism for gravity, merely presented equations for describing it

This is all you had to post desu. Everything else is irrelevant (because it's foundation is based on this faulty description).

>>11938535
>we neglect to define the pressure wave in the electromagnetic field
A wave is the action of a field in the first place.

>>11938526
>>11938535

A scalar wave is not a "wave". It's compression/rarefaction of the medium. "Death Ray" was coined by fake news of the day (not much has changed about the same publication that posted said falsehood).

>>11938472
>warping spacetime is possible
Space and time have no properties to be warped

>FTL would be feasible.
Light doesn't travel, it's induced to exist.

>>11938542

>you can indeed couple em fields with spacetime
Explain the difference between the two, try not to take 100 posts like the last person I asked.

>>11938593
pearls before swine...

It's not even a phenomenon unique to humanity, nature can,in very rare circumstances, create fleeting warp fields within very electromagnetically active thunderstorms. Some,although not all, of the accidents attributed to the bermuda triangle are because of this (most are just normal plane accidents). One guy went through such a warp and talked about it-it completely fucked with his and the ground crew's heads,since he was in a place he couldn't be with fuel he shouldn't have had. He had no idea what happened to him and wrote a book about it. A professor read it, figured it must have been space being warped, and decided to have a look around to see just what the magnetic environment inside of thunderstorms is like using an airplane, and then sought to replicate those fields and see what effects they produce on earth. Now, he's on the verge of a commercial announcement.

OP may be a schitzo, but he may be accidentally right.

>>11938594
dawg... space time is a measurement of perception and not one of physicality, the laws that it follows are based on how one dude warps the collective mental states around refracted geodesics dude ok? So like an EM field alright? Those are modular fields by which these transcendental infinities are able to create references and thereby establish collectively referenced reality dude ok it’s not that hard bro you just gotta realize that the fields are Constants with no limits and the variables are transcendental infinities ok geez bro

>>11938606
dude you don’t produce a warp field you modulate around it come on now they can’t exist in a semi-dualistic reality man what kinda science do you even use I bet you believe this sardonic mocking tone to be actually my real tone too man and that’s just a waste dude I just like to party post you should try party posting when the physics gets too weird brah

>>11938606
pearls before swine more like dank shitposting of real future physics before your time because of temporary non causal interactions and here you are acting like an English teach the total irony dude the totally literary irony, Van Halen-like even. lol

>>11938608
>Space time is a measurement of perception and not one of physicality,
So it's bullshit. But good luck thinking in those terms when trying to do something completely irrelevant to them.
>So like an EM field alright?
If you wanna call it that sure, but that's just you defining spacetime with something else that's empirically shown to exist.
>Those are modular fields by which these transcendental infinities are able to create references and thereby establish collectively referenced reality dude ok it’s not that hard bro you just gotta realize that the fields are Constants with no limits and the variables are transcendental infinities ok geez bro
So stop talking about space and time then you fucking moron.

>>11938594
If those images are your meta, I know you got a PhD in Electrodynamics or the like. I'm not sure why your in this thread with such inoculated beliefs, lest a subconscious desire to release your latent potential and understand the universe as your soul intends

So i'll ask you, if your ready

>>11938621
just because you can’t derive consistent rules doesn’t mean you can’t observe or create consistent patterns nerd. you’re literally asking for reality to be consistent so that the person describing it creates a model which you approve of, which is a psychological Hangup you have and not a fault of the explanation nor any valid criticism of it. Merely because the world described is off putting does not mean that the description given is false and also you’re bad at science dawg.

>>11938586
you talk like you've may have been mentally unhinged by a black project or too. Rabbit holes all this civvy has I'm afraid, some kind anon gave me some plasmonium materials the other night, how's things on your end?

>>11938640
Not unhinged,just stumbled upon a fringe researcher and follow him with interest. IT could all be bullshit, but hey, I'm not out any money on it am i?

>>11938632
>So i'll ask you, if your ready
Not for what you've been smoking, no.

>>11938635
>just because you can’t derive consistent rules doesn’t mean you can’t observe or create consistent patterns nerd
The problem in this case is you're trying to derive these things from a shadow.

> you’re literally asking for reality to be consistent so that the person describing it creates a model which you approve of
No, what I'm saying is that descriptions don't mean anything nor define the existence of something. Like the description of gravity.
"object attracts object, more news at 11!"
It's like saying the sky is blue, it's not even wrong but it doesn't mean or prove anything useful. It's just you describing something.

>not a fault of the explanation nor any valid criticism of it.
THERE IS NO EXPLANATION FOR GRAVITY.

>Merely because the world described is off putting does not mean that the description given is false and also you’re bad at science dawg.
Descriptions ARE NOT explanations.

>>11938648
gravity is again, a perception thing, as it is caused by space time. sorry dude the world is not artistotles little sandbox there’s more complicated stuff happening

>>11938648
Than the cosmos be heard, the link shall not be posted

>>11938648
and don’t complain about things not being useful when you do not have the capabilities to ascertain their usefulness in the first place dumb stinky

>>11938646
gotta name, I've been on the hunt for whats been said?

>>11938652
>gravity is again, a perception thing,
It's a description. "Object attracts other object". No explanation provided by the mode or method of how it does that other than "hurr fields".

>caused by space time
Space and time don't cause anything. Space has no properties and time is a measure. They don't exist.
>no they do
So prove it. Show me an experiment that proves such.

>there’s more complicated stuff happening
You got that right. Too many people like you complicating what should be simple.
>>11938654
>hur durr grug see rock go to rock

There's your "useful" description called gravity. So useful that a bum can describe it too!

>>11938656
david pares

>>11938662
thanks man, i'll have a look. Of a similar flavour, perhaps you know of him already, i missed 102 the first time around though (Harold White)

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130011213.pdf

>>11938467

Anti-gravity can be achieved. You need a way to make the gas below you very conductive. Not conductive in the electrical way, but conductive in the mass way. If you can do that, then the gas wi shield you from gravity fields from the earth

>>11938660
you’re brain dead lmao

Your attitude: wow I’m in a computer game why am I not in god mode wow just tell me how to go into god mode wow ughhhhhhhh

Fag

>>11938770
>conductive in the mass way
interesting, i have never heard of this conductivity before, any good place to learn?

>>11938841
>interesting, i have never heard of this conductivity before, any good place to learn?

Mass conductivity is my own invention. It's an analogy to electrostatics. I'm talking about a faraday cage. You can shield something from an external field by surrounding it by a material that conducts the particle carrier of that field. If you could make a mass conductor or make the atmosphere conduct mass better then it would create a faraday cage for gravity. How can mass conductivity be defined? Its defined analogously to electron statics. In electrostatics j=sigma*E. For gravity J=sigma*F . Where F is the force of gravity and sigma is a mass conductance and J is a current of mass.

>>11938869
>Mass conductivity is my own invention.
that's what i'm talking about anon, rock and roll.

>and J is a current of mass.
What i find so interesting about this statement is that i can ill define a current of mass but a particles velocity, but yet, i can't help but feel that current instead of velocity implies something more, i'll have to reflect longer

I like this perspective to physics information generally anon, I always harboured the intuition that gravitation was instantaneous, until an undergrad astronomy professor answered by question that if the Sun dematerialized, we'ed orbit that spot for another 8 minutes (till the light hit us).

Than naturally, gravitation seems to possess the requirement of signalling. Stop the signal, as in a 'your name'-cage built with mass conductance. Quite fascinating.

>>11938953
in fact, if one was able to slow light down enough before arriving, so too will the gravitation signal... I wonder if a bose-einstein condensate could fulfill this task, spinning so they never quite reach the center of the media, (our ship). Anon, you've unlocked something for me, thank you.

>>11938829
How about you spend less posts falsely assuming how I think and actually provide something useful to the discussion.

Newfag

>>11938869
>Mass conductivity is my own invention. It's an analogy to electrostatics. I'm talking about a faraday cage.
>I'm just being disingenuous for no reason.

>How can mass conductivity be defined?
dielectric permittivity and magnetic permeability

>no man no bro, like it's this other description I made up bro like come on man

>43 / 22 / 8 / 2

>>11938469
>>11938467
Go to >>>/x/

>45 posts
>10 IPs

wtf is this thread

>>11938467
First of all OP, gravity is an effect, not a force. The effect which we know as gravity is produced by the electric force, which is the /only/ force in the universe. Gravity, magnetism and the nuclear so-called "forces" are all simply manifestations of the way matter responds to the electric force. Let that sink in. Secondly, if we pretend for a moment that gravity is a force, then it's the absolutely weakest "force" in the universe. In fact, it's gravity is 1000 billion billion billion BILLION times weaker than the electric force.

Fun fact: If gravity was the dominant force in the universe and what holds galaxies together, and not the electric force, then gravity would need to be operating at 20 billion times the so called "speed of light" -- that's 20 billion times 299 792 458 meters per second -- otherwise galaxies would fall apart. If a scientist ignores the role of the electric force, then the only way for him to get "around" the aforementioned problem is to resort to inventing exotic nonsense like "dark energy" and "dark matter" and so forth - which is of course nothing but a nonsensical band-aid on a broken model of the universe.

You should listen to this excellent presentation on gravity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU

>>11938467
First of all OP, gravity is an effect, not a force. The effect which we know as gravity is produced by the electric force, which is the /only/ force in the universe. Gravity, magnetism and the nuclear so-called "forces" are all simply manifestations of the way matter responds to the electric force. Let that sink in. Secondly, if we pretend for a moment that gravity is a force, then it's the absolutely weakest "force" in the universe. In fact, gravity is 1000 billion billion billion BILLION times weaker than the electric force.

Fun fact: If gravity was the dominant force in the universe and what holds galaxies together, and not the electric force, then gravity would need to be operating at 20 billion times the so called "speed of light" -- that's 20 billion times 299 792 458 meters per second -- otherwise galaxies would fall apart. If a scientist ignores the role of the electric force, then the only way for him to get "around" the aforementioned problem is to resort to inventing exotic nonsense like "dark energy" and "dark matter" and so forth - which is of course nothing but a nonsensical band-aid on a broken model of the universe.

You should listen to this excellent presentation on gravity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU

>>11938652
>gravity is caused by spacetime
No, just no.

>>11938652
>gravity is caused by spacetime
Again; no.

>>11939526
>>11939529
Thanks for that, I have always been deeply distrurbed by the idea of adding time to make the 4 space, because yeah it has no quantum operator, and it and x y or z measured at two different points. I don't see how orthogonality is justified for t

>>11939526
>>11939529
Didn't read through it, scanned the expressions listed. Seems like you're stuck in special relativity. Where's your spacetime curvature? Where's your metric tensor? "gravity is caused by spacetime" comes from general relativity, not special relativity

>>11939445
Two schizos battling it out to see who can spout more delusional pseudoscientific gibberish.

>>11939526
>>11939529
>paper tries to refute widely accepted scientific theory
>the math involved doesn't go past high school level
every fucking time

>>11939011

I read your entire reply to my post about mass conductivity and can only conclude you have sand in your vagina. Whats your problem? If you actually could find a way to make mass respond to a gravitational field as well as copper moves around charges you could shield things from gravity analogously to a faraday cage in electrostatics. Do you have an actual counter argument or are your period cramps too painful?

>>11940042
>I read your entire reply to my post about mass conductivity and can only conclude you have sand in your vagina
Well I don't really care what you think since all you've done is take others ideas and translate them into your own descriptions, just like the retard Einstein did and the batshit physicists that got us into this pickle did. Stop describing, start explaining, or stop replying. If "mass conductivity" was "your own invention" then why isn't your name written on every magnet on planet earth? Why isn't it carved into the earth itself?

>If you actually could find a way to make mass respond to a gravitational field as well as copper moves around charges you could shield things from gravity analogously to a faraday cage in electrostatics.

Can you explain the difference between gravity and magnetism? You still refer to a "gravitational field" as if it's own separate modality/cause for some reason, despite having no proof for such.

>Do you have an actual counter argument or are your period cramps too painful?
How do you expect me to argue against something that was never proven true to begin with? Not how it works knucklehead, explain what causes gravity then I can actually recognize it as something worthy of being discussed.

>>11940318
>. If "mass conductivity" was "your own invention" then why isn't your name written on every magnet on planet earth?

Magnets don't work with mass retard magnets only work with magnetic materials. if you have a hunk of iron and you put an ear magnet yeah you'll get some response, but if you put aluminum there nothing is going to f****** happen. Why is that? It's because magnets don't have anything to do with mass they have things to do with microscopic charges inside the mass. I'm talking about an actual current of mass which is not necessarily charged.

>>11940466
Magnets don't work with mass retard.
Explain the difference between a magnet and the same exact material not magnetized. It's not a quantitative obviously (because the exact same type and quantity of material is present).

>magnets only work with magnetic materials
>he doesn't even know how electricity is made
Well go google it. Every element is affected by a magnetic field.

>but if you put aluminum there nothing is going to f****** happen. Why is that?
You tell me, you obviously are speaking out your ass at this point. Why don't you go take a big chunk of aluminum and an n45 magnet and tell me what effect the magnet has on it you fucking idiot.
>no hurr durr I'm taking about specific descriptions of mass being "attracted" not the diamagnetic elements descriptions.
Well both "paramagnetic" and "diamagnetic" elements are "affected" by a magnetic field. You can make a magnetic field using both para and diamagnetic elements such as the case with an electromagnet. You're just focused on the elements that have the most reaction because you suck at looking for the details.

>It's because magnets don't have anything to do with mass
It's a mass of ceramic , iron, boron, copper and other masses you retard. No magnetic field=no mass.

>I'm talking about an actual current of mass which is not necessarily charged.
>current of mass

elaborate more

Alight listen up anons, this is what were going to do

A theoretical mass faraday cage

Have you heard non linear optical media anon?
https://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-82-5213
>The trick, of course, is to alter
the refractive index in just the right way so
that the material scatters the light wave into
its conjugate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_reversal_signal_processing

I aught to dedicate a thread to this physics itself, its probably the coolest physics i never learned. Anyways, what does this have to do with OPs post?

Well, our medium is going to be a cesium bose-einstein condensate, rapidly spinning.

As light, (and/or the information encoding the gravitational force) enters our mass faraday cage. its refractive index will be so as to drastically lengthen the time it takes for that light to reach the inside of our cage, the spinning motion also drastically increases the path length as well. Hopefully we can tune this fluid to the trick above and get it to a point where this light is orbiting our cage.

But anyways, gravity will be imparted all around our device, but we have sufficiently lagged the signal inside, so the gravity force will be felt after the gravity is felt around the ship, giving the impression of anti gravity

>>11940521
>Explain the difference between a magnet and the same exact material not magnetized.

Ok.

Magnet: all magnetic domains are parallel. Microscopic currents are aligned.

Same material not magnetized:
Magnetic domains or microscopic currents not aligned.

That was fucking easy. What's your point?

So you think gravity is a para or diamagnetic effect? Tht would make sense if the Earth's magnetic field was 100Tesla, but it's not. The Earth's magnetic field is not strong enough to pulls us down at 10m/s^2 . I wish everything was electromagnetic myself, but your ideas are not practical.

>>11940531
>Well, our medium is going to be a cesium bose-einstein condensate, rapidly spinning.

We UFO now!

Finally something to make my huge brass balls weigh less.

>>11940682

>Magnet: all magnetic domains are parallel. Microscopic currents are aligned.
>Same material not magnetized: Magnetic domains or microscopic currents not aligned.

>That was fucking easy. What's your point?

I said explain not describe. From the descriptions you provided,(magnetic domain, currents, parallel) you should be able to deduce that the only thing that causes magnetism (and maybe gravity) is not the matter, it is the action of it. The material in a magnet is mutually impelled to do the same thing, all parts acting as one, the other does not. Gravity is described similarly as "mass attraction" instead of "magnetic attraction", but since every material/mass is affected by a magnetic field then what is the difference?

>So you think gravity is a para or diamagnetic effect?
Dielectric acceleration, or what you call "magnetic attraction". Don't forget magnets repel each other too!

>That would make sense if the Earth's magnetic field was 100Tesla, but it's not.
Because of all the diamagnetic elements making the field incoherent. Also the polarity shifting of the materials in the earths crust act as a halbach-array and the other various celestial bodies which induce this effect. It's not "just earths field" It's "all the fields". A sun or a neutron stars elements for instance are all homogeneous which allows a magnetic field/gravity to be much stronger. It's the expression, coherency and uniformity of the action of matter, not the matter itself.

>The Earth's magnetic field is not strong enough to pulls us down at 10m/s^2
Neither is a non-existent description you dub "gravity". Magnets do more than pull, especially when the object in question is diamagnetic (such as water for instance).

> I wish everything was electromagnetic myself
But it is. An atom is just a dynamo, and light is just an electromagnetic phenomena. Where does this "gravity" come from if not just an electromagnetic effect?

>>11940689
>now what causes the rapid spinning?

>>11941146
>but since every material/mass is affected by a magnetic field then what is the difference?

Magnitude. In all your ramblings you take two phenomena and compare them while completely neglecting magnitude or quantity. your attraction to earth from paramagnetism 0.000000001m/s^2 . Your attraction to earth from gravity 10m/s^2.

You are making equal two things that are so distant in relevance and magnitude I must assume you are joking.

bruh

>>11941146
>>now what causes the rapid spinning?
lasers and an external magnetic field, and maybe a little from the universe itself
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/1048/what-if-the-universe-is-rotating-as-a-whole

>>11941186
>Magnitude
>Mag..netism

>In all your ramblings you take two phenomenaa and compare them while completely neglecting magnitude or quantity.
I neglected quantity for the purpose of the magnet example.

>your attraction to earth from paramagnetism 0.000000001m/s^2
>attraction
>paramagnetism
again you seem to think that's all magnetism entails.
>Your attraction to earth from gravity 10m/s^2.
Which is again a description, not an explanation. What I'm trying to say is that both gravity and magnetism are the same thing in a different form. One incoherent, the other coherent. Both have a different effect but effects are just that. I am concerned with the cause.

>You are making equal two things that are so distant in relevance and magnitude I must assume you are joking.
>yes you're joking so allow me to finally explain the difference between the two without simply re-describing them as different with no proof or reasoning as to how or why.

>>11941275
>lasers and an external magnetic field,
>altering electromagnetic phenomena in general
"Yes"

>>11938594
>>11938621
>Dunning-kreuger: the poster