Seems to me anyway it's not nostr that matters, its the idea of an open protocol for social media per se.
This is a difference to bitcoin, which really has to succeed because you couldn't plausibly launch / bootstrap an alternative decentralized money now - it's a one-shot game.
But it doesn't matter if nostr is superceded by some other open protocol. As long as something exists with those properties all the free world will inevitably end up using it.
(Though it would be nice if the entirety of future human discourse would turn out to originate from a bunch of shitposting btc maxis 😂)
With nostr you can be your own drama/controversy 😁
Plus am I the only one who just wants pizza without having to become a member of their "community"?
It's so creepy!
"In a grossly simplified explanation, nature demands an equilibrium. Magnetic attraction is dielectric acceleration towards counterspace. In the same way nature seeks to equalize pressure, it is a propensity to induce its natural state - a state of rest. As with two magnets accelerating toward eachother, towards counterspace, when objects fall to the ground, it is the same phenomenon - nature seeking a state of rest. 'What goes up, must come down'."
You are saying an object falls to ground because of "pressure" to find equilibrium. I can broadly accept that but you still need a motive force to create the pressure and define the equilibrium. Otherwise the object would stay where it is.
You use magnetic attraction as an analogy but its clearly not the force responsible.
So what is the force that is responsible for objects falling to earth?
Seems to me imparting a negative charge to any object should cause it to leave the planet in your model which clearly doesn't happen.
If you want to have a discussion I'm going to need you to use language that shows respect for my views, which are genuinely held, even if you disagree with them, and telling me they amount to "worship" doesn't do this.
Well granted you weren't specific, but the guy I spoke to was clear that static electric attraction of opposite charges was the explanation for objects falling to earth - and I've seen that stated elsewhere too. Do you have a different explanation?
And fwiw I'm not currently interested in disproving gravity (though it might be an interesting thing for future) but to understand the FE explanation for bodies falling to earth.
Hand around it's head so neck between index and middle finger, head in your palm.
Then a sharp knife to quickly cut with a slashing motion.
But opposite charges still attract, yes? By coulombs law? Because that's all it needs for my argument
"A negative electric charge will attract positive charges from all directions. From the left, right, front, back, top, bottom and all directions in between."
Perhaps I'm not understanding you. The field on either side of a magnet is 180 degrees, not 360, because they are separated by the inertial plane. One side is lines of centrifugal divergence while the opposing side is lines of centripetal convergence.
Since you claim that fields can be spherical, do you have any experiments to demonstrate this?
Fields cannot be anything other than toroidal in terms of their geometric expression, no matter what shape a magnet is.
There are countless demonstrations that prove this, here are just a couple, along with some explanations:
Yes I think the misunderstanding here is that I'm talking about an electric field, which has the properties I described, while you're talking about a magnetic field 😀
If everyone is so sure that gravity as it is explained exists, then surely they should be able to define it? Of course no one is denying the phenomenon of things falling down, but they all fail to adequately explain it.
First it was mass attracting mass proposed by Newton, but that didn't work on a larger scale, so relativity was proposed - an explanation that applies physical properties to space and time. Space and time are privations, they have no physical properties. How does one 'bend and warp' that which does not have any physical properties? It is completely illogical.
Secondly, there is no way to independently test and verify the hypothesis. It is entirely theoretical and belief based, and the theory itself is flawed based on the reasons I provided.
".. because the force itself, whatever it is, when acting in 3d space, must tend to create spheres. "
Based on what? Fields only have two geometric patterns - toroidal and hyperboloidal. We can observe these fields using ferrocells. There is no such thing as a spherical field.
"Why would it only act downwards on a plane rather than towards the centre of mass or charge or whatever the relevant quantity is."
Because the Earth has a downward bias towards the inertial plane, or the ground. The higher you get off the ground, the stronger the electrical charge in the air is, and the more downward bias there is due to the increase in charge.
If you examine a magnetic field, it is works in the same way. Magnetic fields are toroidal. Dielectric fields are hyperboloidal. If you take a cross section of this, you have two vortices - one above and one below the plane of inertial, which is the neutral point. We can observe the same behaviour manifest in nature too. A tornado is a vortex, it has the same pattern as a magnetic field, and the 'eye of the storm' is completely calm, because it has the same null point as a magnet does, where all the energy converges into a null point.
From my perspective, one hypothesis cannot be tested or verified and is applying illogical descriptions to immaterial things.
The other hypothesis can be tested, observed and used to manipulate objects. If you flip the polarity, you can cause objects to 'ignore' gravity and have upward movement. This is because magnetism is a much stronger force than what we call gravity.
This video is basically using the work on Ken Wheeler to briefly demonstrate it - Ken himself thinks FE is stupid but he explains what magnetism is far better than anyone I have come across.
https://video.nostr.build/eb0efe0cb1c48fcd93674bdcb44c50af4f816b887fd525ad40460fa7c91e3df1.mp4
The idea of gravity is challenged by many, independent of FE. It doesn't make far-fetched claims that one has to believe in because we can all test it for ourselves.
On one hand, you can have a helium filled balloon escape the pull of gravity, but it is supposedly a force strong enough to keep water clinging to the Earth while keeping the moon and celestial bodies in orbit. On the other, if the Earth is inherently magnetic, then this field is what would keep these bodies in motion.
I think the Earth and everything on it is inherently electrical and magnetic, and this would serve to explain the phenomenon very well. The most prominent physicists couldn't even define what magnetism is, let alone explain it, and I find that rather interesting. I think they simply engage in impressive mental masturbation that wows us because very few people really understand what they are talking about.
Well, to stick to my narrow question, in the terms I'm talking about there certainly is "such thing as a spherical field".
A negative electric charge will attract positive charges from all directions. From the left, right, front, back, top, bottom and all directions in between.
That gives you a sphere, not a plane. By my understanding of force fields, you'd represent that with arrows all pointing to the central negative charge - in a sphere.
Separately, you mention buoyancy etc as some flaw with the theory of gravity, as I've heard FE proponents do before. But for there to be any such effect you still need a force - be it gravity or static charge.
Moreover all those arguments that I've heard about buoyancy are easily understood by appreciating that all objects and materials are subject to gravity, including air and water, and any other medium. They can't all occupy the same space, so the most dense end up being drawn further in the field.
Helium balloons rise because the air around them is denser and drawn under them. But they are absolutely not "escaping" gravity, they are just moving to their place in the density order caused by gravity. They won't float off from the earth unless acted on by some other force.
This is just the same as a piece of wood rising in water. It's not escaping gravity - it stops rising when the fluid beneath (water) is denser than it is, and the fluid above is less dense (air).
There's nothing special about fluids in this respect - setting aside friction the reason objects lie on the ground is that the ground is denser and the object more buoyant. I see no oddity or inconsistency here.
so if I gave something a negative charge it would fly off into space?
Divide sure, but there are millions of us who found out were unconquerable 💪😀
Covid didn't take anything, these people - the adults anyway - gave that stuff away by complying with the cruel insanity of lockdowns.
Thanks for responding 😃
To me I guess it doesn't fundamentally matter what the force is that pulls an object to the ground (though I've never heard a convincing argument that it could be electromagnetism etc)..
.. because the force itself, whatever it is, when acting in 3d space, must tend to create spheres. Why would it only act downwards on a plane rather than towards the centre of mass or charge or whatever the relevant quantity is.
I suppose the general point is that a 2d plane the size of the earth doesn't make sense in 3d space.
And gravity seems a much more sensible way to explain the observations of bodies falling to earth here, as well as the apparent orbits of other planets etc.
My experience is also affected a bit by trying to raise these questions with an apparently prominent "expert" in the field and I had the strong feeling he was not discussing in good faith. I could accept that he disagreed with me about things but it felt like he was unwilling to let me leave without giving in to his point of view. So it really made me think, this is a cult. Not nice.
I worked in government and it's not far wrong to say they're all liars. To be a bit more specific, they will tell the truth until they discern the slightest political pressure to lie, and then they lie.
And science is no different. As soon as politics or money are involved, the institutions dependent on politics or money (ie all of them) will do what's needed to preserve their political standing or their funding - and that means firing dissenters even if (especially if) they are telling the truth.
For example, did your doctor recommend COVID jabs for, let's say, an 18 yr old man who had already had covid? If so then they have acted in complete denial of science, for political or financial reasons - while totally disregarding the health of their patient. This means you cannot trust them to give you truthful information about your health.
Flat earth is a cult, I think
nostr:npub180x9vv4yuagf2w3qzmuertvv46ccee6n0wp0yh3zcz7nhyqrmzuqzjmehq.
Thanks for discussing!
My specific issue is, I've heard mwi described as saying there is no wave function collapse - all that happens is you, as an observer, end up in a branch that contains a single outcome from all the superposed possibilities - eg an electron hitting the detector at a certain place after going through alone slit or the other. It is implied that nothing special happens before this, and observation just strips out all the other possibilities ("destroys the worlds").
But the electron at the detector has the properties of a particle not a wave. If so something must have changed and the only thing that makes sense to me involves some sort of "collapse" from waves that can interfere, to particles that are detected. Which seems not to be allowed under mwi.
As an aside part of my interest in this is that I feel quantum mechanics may indicate a special role for the observer that puts it outside of the physical world, and can help make sense of many things in our experience that science hasn't been able to inform us on. More on this if you are interested!
do you have a way to explain gravity (ie if you let something go it falls) in flat earth? thanks! 🙏
Ok but we are in a historic CO2 famine - our plants are choking for lack of it - so I think all socially responsible bitcoin miners (and global citizens more generally) should be burning as much hydrocarbon as they can 🙏
Corny but the answer is literally: peace, love and freedom.
But mostly freedom.
Serious question: can someone here explain to me how you get interference in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (eg in 2 slit expt)? Cos that feels kinda important.. .. thanks! 🙏