[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 78 KB, 1280x720, electric universe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11296312 No.11296312 [Reply] [Original]

What are arguments against the electric universe theory? How is it that gravity is not a form of electromagnetism?
I have a friend who is saying the universe is a plasma universe and that gravity isnt real.

>> No.11296315 [DELETED] 
File: 1.01 MB, 500x375, 6780507_1cff6.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11296315

>> No.11296323

>>11296312
The argument is that there is no argument for it. Your friend isnt a reliable source on physics.

>> No.11296333

>>11296323
Of course, but what I mean is, what are the specific effects that Gravity and Electromagnetism do that makes it impossible to consider them the same force?
What forces us to conclude that gravity is it's own force? I cant point to gravitational waves or whatever because "that's a conspiracy".
My argument was that we see gravity affect all matter whereas electromagnetism doesn't affect non-magnetic pieces of matter (like an eraser or rubber) so that right there shows that they can't be the same, because erasers and such wouldn't be pulled to the earth. He said that on the scale of the size of the earth it's different. How do I show that it's not different?

>> No.11296341

also, he said the Michelson-Morley experiment doesnt consider length contraction,and length contraction have shown the possibility the aether exists. how do i show him this is stupid?

>> No.11296357

>>11296333
>Of course, but what I mean is, what are the specific effects that Gravity and Electromagnetism do that makes it impossible to consider them the same force?
Is this a joke? Electromagnetism has two signs of charge, while gravity only has one (i.e. gravity does not have a repelling force). Gravity increases with mass/energy while electromagnetic force increases with charge imbalance. This means gravity is much "weaker" since you need a lot more particles to create a gravitational force than you need to create the equivalent electromagnetic force. Gravitational waves are weakly interacting and hard to detect while electromagnetic waves are the opposite. Gravitation is equal to inertial mass while electromagnetism has no tension to inertia.

>> No.11296363

>>11296341
This is a bizarre claim. Length contraction explains the results as part of special relativity. What does aether have to do with length contraction?

>> No.11296446

>>11296312
>How is it that gravity is not a form of electromagnetism?
Because it effects objects of different electromagnetic properties in the same exact way, showing that gravity is not electromagnetic.

>> No.11297486

>>11296312
>How is it that gravity is not a form of electromagnetism?
You have it backwards. It's electromagnetism that is a form of gravity, acting on the fifth compact spatial dimension. Check out Kaluza-Klein theory.

>> No.11297493

>>11296333
Gravity doesn't have a positive and negative. Mass is always positive

>> No.11297562

>>11296333
Electromagnetism is electromagnetism. It's a force of its own field. It clearly exists in that it effects everything, except light which is just excited electromagnetism.

Gravity is a force that comes from mass and affects all objects with mass.
But what is mass? - matter with a resistance to change in inertia.
But with our new understanding of the Higgs boson and field, it appears mass does not exist but is just a measurement of inertia. The interaction with the higgs field is either easy or slow depending on your boson density, and that manifests in the form of inertia, and we measure that in grams.
Mass is to inertia as time is to entropy.
So if mass doesn't exist, and inertia doesn't attract things, than what the fuck is gravity.

>> No.11297598

>>11296341
With Michelson-Morley did they not consider that the aether is moving along with us? Why would it be stationary?

>> No.11297725

>>11296341
>how do i show him this is stupid?
You tell him that he's retarded for believing the Michelson-Morley experiment proved anything about ONE theory of the aether.

>>11296446
It still does not "show" what gravity "is".

>>11297493
>Gravity doesn't have a positive and negative
Neither does a magnet. It is "one magnet".

>>11297562
>It's a force of its own field. It clearly exists in that it effects everything, except light which is just excited electromagnetism.
>Faraday effect
It literally doesn't make sense to say that one of the components of light has no effect on light since it causes it to exist in the first place.

>>11297598
A null hypothesis that led to an "experiment" that proved nothing of use.

>> No.11297734
File: 43 KB, 644x403, 1551552015023.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11297734

>>11297725
>Neither does a magnet. It is "one magnet".
Anon, magnetic monopoles don't exist, you might have posted the most stupid fucking thing I've ever read on this website

>> No.11297873

>>11297734
Anon, magnetic monopoles don't exist, you might have posted the most stupid fucking thing I've ever read on this website

I never said they did, you said I did. "One" magnet has "2 poles" but that doesn't mean anything, that's just a description based on what is observed. Why does it have two poles? You say "mass is always positive"...well what about a magnet? It is mass.

>> No.11297945

>>11297873
We say a magnet has two poles because the field it creates is identical to the field created by two spatially separated monopoles. A magnet is a bad example anyway because Gauss’s law for magnetism makes the idea of positive and negative harder to grasp. Instead try to think about electric fields, for which monopoles most certainly do exist (see electron, muon, proton, etc.) and have a clearly defined positive or negative sign associated with them.

>> No.11297963

drop two objects of different masses in a vacuum under the same gravitational field and they accelerate at the same rate

drop two objects of different masses in a vacuum under the same magnetic field and they don't

explain this

>> No.11297966

>>11297945
>We say a magnet has two poles because the field it creates is identical to the field created by two spatially separated monopoles.

But it's still "one magnet". The poles don't actually exist, it's just a bunch of arranged iron bro.

>A magnet is a bad example anyway because Gauss’s law for magnetism makes the idea of positive and negative harder to grasp.
It's a complete misnomer in and of itself, "positive and negative". It's used purely to make a distinction between that which does the same thing

>Instead try to think about electric fields

But I'm talking about magnets and magnetic fields.

>> No.11298009

>>11297966
>But it's still "one magnet".
So what if you break it in half?

>> No.11298289

>>11296357
negative charge, explain that one to me anon.

>> No.11298302

>>11296333
If electromagnetism didn't affect rubber, rubber would go straight through the ground and fall to the center of the Earth like it was nothing. Touch is mediated by electromagnetism.