Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[ratiocinator]

It´s not universal evidence to find predictions which fits into a wrong model which in itself doesn´t fit to other cosmological models.

Making predictions and confirming them by observation is the only sort of evidence there can be for scientific theories. What criteria do you want to replace it with and why?

At it´s best this is just wishfull thinking based on assumptions and speculations.

You still haven't explained the why "wishfull thinking based on assumptions and speculations" matches reality so closely and has made successful predictions of new, previously unseen, phenomena.

 

[ChristineM]

Making predictions and confirming them by observation is the only sort of evidence there can be for scientific theories. What criteria do you want to replace it with and why?



You still haven't explained the why "wishfull thinking based on assumptions and speculations" matches reality so closely and has made successful predictions of new, previously unseen, phenomena.

Been through all this with him on another thread and this one, his answer was to ignore the questions and on repeating the questions accuse me of being a waste of time.

So i eagerly await the response you receive

 

[Native]

You still haven't explained the why "wishfull thinking based on assumptions and speculations" matches reality so closely and has made successful predictions of new, previously unseen, phenomena.

You could have named the assumed gravity model "The Donald Duck Model" and it STILL would have some succes as a calculation model in the small cosmological scales - and STILL be quite out of order on the overall cosmological scale.

 

[ChristineM]

You could have named the assumed gravity model "The Donald Duck Model" and it STILL would have some succes as a calculation model in the small cosmological scales - and STILL be quite out of order on the overall cosmological scale.

Do you have any idea of the scope of gravity?

Or the meaning of cosmology?

 

[Native]

Do

Go walk your dog . . .

 

[ChristineM]

Go walk your dog . . .

;
How pleasant you are so true to your religion, at least what i have come to expect of religion anyway.

Had you bothered to ask i would have informed you i dont have a dog

Anyway, i am assuming you dont want to learn why you are so wrong about gravity? Also expected

 

[Native]

Had you bothered to ask i would have informed you i dont have a dog

Lucky dog

 

[ChristineM]

Lucky dog

And again so typical, omitting the parts you dont like.

How very christian you are.

 

[joelr]

Native said: ↑
I agree on your description of the "Newtonian gravity", but i don´t think the Einsteinian model is that much better.

Einsteins "rubber sheet gravity model" and his "curvation of space-time" is highly speculative and STILL bound to the Newtonial gravity model instead of taking a new and logical approach to the very phenomenon of motions in the Universe.

That isn't true at all.

Please link to the source theory with equations that also explain Mercurys perihillion, explains all of the time dillation effects and equations that we use to correct GPS times that also predicts gravitational lensing and gravity waves.
Explain how your "atmosphere lensing" can explain not just strong lensing but weak lensing and microlensing.
The angle of deflection is calculated extremely precise with general relativity and we can measure images separated by arcoseconds. What the theory predicts we see to a minute detail.

Why should the EU have to predict this? The EU doesn´t accept the Big Bang at all.
)

EU doesn't predict anything at all, it isn't a theory.

It's a mythology ctreated to suck money out of people who can't figure out how to debunk bad science.

The People Who Believe Electricity Rules the Universe

"
They call themselves The Thunderbolts Project.

They subscribe to an idea called "electric universe," and sometimes describe themselves as "getting EU eyes." Like slipping on rose-colored glasses, the conversion changes their perception of the entire universe. The objects and events remain the same. But they're tinged with truth. And in EU theory, the truth is that electricity rules.

Electric currents that flow along plasma filaments shape and power galaxies. The currents stream into stars, powering them like fluorescent bulbs. They induce the births of planets. Craters on those planets come from electrical arcs, like lightning bolts, that sear the surfaces.

Also, black holes don't exist, and neither does dark matter. Nor dark energy.

The Big Bang? Never happened.

Einstein's two relativities are laughable fiction.

Electricity can explain away all that stuff.

"The story of the cosmos that you see in the media now is virtual reality," said Wallace Thornhill, one of the founders of EU.
The electric universe concept does not meet the National Academy of Sciences' definition of a "theory," which is "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence" and "can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."

In physics, theories need math. That's how you predict, gather evidence, verify, disprove, and support. But EU theory isn't big on math. In fact, "Mathematics is not physics," Thornhill said. While that equation aversion makes the theory pretty much a nonstarter for "mainstream" astronomers, it is the exact thing that appeals to many adherents.

"They don't blind you with science," said Rasjid Smith, who learned EU theory from YouTube. "It is understandable to a capable schoolchild."

The idea that outsiders ("the people") will revolutionize physics, in a way that those outsiders understand, is powerful.
"Science is returned to the people—the garage tinkerer, the practical engineer, and the natural philosopher," Thornhill told Motherboard.

"People say to me that it has changed their lives because it makes sense for them," he said. "And because it is a real cosmology, there is something for everyone, be they scholar, artist, engineer, or the 'man on the street.'"

EU is completely at odds, however, with everything modern science has determined about the universe.

"At best, the 'electric universe' is a solution in search of a problem; it seeks to explain things we already understand very well through gravity, plasma and nuclear physics, and the like," said astronomer Phil Plait, who runs the blog Bad Astronomy at Slate. "At worst it's sheer crackpottery like homeopathy and astrology, making claims clearly contradicted by the evidence."

Yet something about it sparks fervor in the hearts of people-on-the-street, more fervor than casual believers in the Big Bang have. Despite the gaps, logical fallacies, and evidence to its contrary, EU appeals deeply to adherents, lighting a fire not unlike a tent revival does. The question is, what is it about EU that grabs people?
Thornhill began his obsessive study of cosmic electricity in high school, when he read Immanuel Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision, published in 1950.

Velikovsky was an author known mostly for his controversial "comparative mythology" books, which recast and reinterpreted ancient history. In Worlds in Collision, he said that Jupiter ejected to Venus around 1500 BCE. From there, the newborn planet flew close to Earth, causing all sorts of catastrophes. When Venus came back around a half-century later, it stopped Earth's spin (briefly), making for a long night.

The resulting disasters, Velikovsky claimed, showed up in mythology around the world. Astrophysicists pointed out that this Jupiter-born Venus idea violated theories about orbits and gravity. But Velikovsky had gone rogue: He suggested gravity didn't cause orbits. Electricity did.

When a young Thornhill read Velikovsky's book, he recognized a kindred spirit. Here, he thought, was a true scientist, not afraid to be a heretic. After studying physics and electronics at the University of Melbourne, Australia, Thornhill briefly did upper-atmosphere research at IBM, but he, too, identified as a heretic. It wasn't long before he left the establishment.

He never forgot about Velikovsky, though. And in the early 1970s, he heard about a magazine called Pulsate: 10 issues, all devoted to his scientific hero. The publication was written by brothers Steven and David Talbott. He soon met these two, along with Velikovsky himself, at a conference called "Velikovsky and the Recent History of the Solar System." Five years later, he found himself in Velikovsky's home in Princeton, New Jersey. There, Velikovsky "planted the seed of an idea that gravity is related to the electrical structure of neutral matter," Thornhill told me.

 

[joelr]

First you have a wrong cosmological model based on "gravity". Then you look for possible predictions wich fits into this wrong model and when you think you´ve found someting, then you call it evidences.

It´s STILL a wrong cosmological model though.

"
That seed would eventually grow into a framework called "electric universe" theory, which Thornhill and David Talbott would later develop together and which would gain a fervent worldwide following.

Thornhill and Talbott began their official EU collaboration at another conference, years later. "Since my university days, I had been prepared to assist those leading the fray in any way I could," Thornhill said. "But at that 1994 conference, I realized that the leaders were gone and it was up to me."

In preparation for that meeting, which was called "Planetary Violence in Human History," Thornhill spent a month sleeping on his friend's office floor. He wanted to convince Talbott that the ancient images he'd been studying—petroglyphs that look like the cartoon Suns in the top-right corners of kindergarten art—bore witness to catastrophic plasma events. Plasma, the idea went, pervades the universe in filaments. Those filaments carry electric current, and that current controls the cosmos. "Magnetism, gravity and the nuclear forces are all different manifestations of the electric force at vastly different scales," Thornhill said of the basis of the theory.

Thornhill called his conference talk, "The Electric Universe."
Today, it's not just Thornhill and Talbott. EU also has the backing of a fervent community, those in The Thunderbolts Project. Since Thornhill and Talbott founded this movement, the internet has spread it.

The Thunderbolts website has 1,800 forum participants, with about 130 online simultaneously at peak traffic. The Thunderbolts Facebook page has around 10,000 followers.

One hundred seventy-five people donate $1,905 per month to the Thunderbolts Project Patreon campaign for video production. On its YouTube page, six feature-length documentaries have anywhere between 300,000 and a million views. The group holds annual conferences. This year's is at the Sheraton in Mesa, Arizona.

Reddit user NeeAnderTall, an EU follower and Thunderbolt subreddit peruser, began life wanting to be an astronaut. NeeAnderTall, who didn't want to use his real name, consumed science fiction like fuel. But as the years supposedly depicted in Space 1999 and 2001: A Space Odyssey approached without measuring up, he grew frustrated.

"Everything I wanted to experience was always 20 years away," he said.

So he decided to reverse-engineer a UFO (something he no longer believes in). In the classifieds at the back of Popular Science magazine, he found an ad for High-Energy Electrostatics Research, a tome that deals with "anti-gravity." Soon, he enrolled in college astronomy and geology classes. He gave status-quo answers to get good grades, but he didn't buy into all of it, especially dark matter.

While browsing Reddit one day, he came across Thornhill and Talbott's video Thunderbolts of the Gods, an EU primer. He watched YouTube video after YouTube video, hooked. He likens EU to "a hipster teenager [rebelling] against parental restrictions and taboos."

That reaction against convention also led Marc Royal, a 47-year-old music producer in Alberta, Canada, to the electric universe. In his early twenties, he felt constrained by the corporate demands of his intended career in graphic design. His true passions were making music and reading physics books from Foyles Bookstore in London. When he considered going back to school to formally learn more about the universe, he met with a professor to investigate his options.

"I want you to put all the books down because I want to teach you from scratch," the professor said, of his auto-didacticism.

"I thought, 'Oh, that's indoctrination,'" said Royal. Which he was not into.

He opted to continue his solo studies. Soon, he concluded that gravity holds physics back from a grand theory that could explain everything. He evolved the germ of his own unified theory: that "most things could already be explained by electricity alone." He didn't find the Thunderbolts, or the official electric universe, until later.

Royal still lurks on the Thunderbolts forum, but the negativity now keeps him silent. A typical comments section is full of ad hominem attacks and invective toward mainstream astronomy and EU doubters. He doesn't think the Thunderbolts have it all figured out.

"They need to work the maths out and get their papers peer-tested," he said.

But most in the astronomy "establishment" or "NASA," which seems to be the blanket EU term for a conglomeration of mainstream astronomers, would say EU doesn't deserve refutation.
"We know stars generate energy through nuclear fusion, not plasma discharge; we know craters are formed from asteroid and comet impacts, not huge electric arcs; we absolutely know that special and general relativity work, despite some EU proponents' claims," said Plait, who has tangled with EU commenters a time or two. "From what I've seen, most EU claims are on the cranky end of [the] scale. That's why most astronomers ignore it: No evidence for it, tons of evidence against it, and no support mathematically or physically."

EU makes few predictions. It doesn't have a unified framework, or mathematical laws underpinning it. The underlying physics doesn't go far beyond, "It's electric." Data doesn't support or disprove specific hypotheses. And where are all these electrical arcs in space? And what could their power source possibly be?

It's hard to point out the holes in EU hole by hole because, well, there are a lot. (Here are some others' attempts to poke holes.) Proponents also cherry-pick individual phenomena to explain: individual entries on how stars shine, how craters form, why galaxies have their shapes, and what causes planets and craters. They don't give a whole-universe overview detailed enough to unify those phenomena and also apply to phenomena they haven't yet described.

The gaps in electric universe theory do drive followers from the fold. David, a former enthusiast who now calls EU an "anti-science cult" and wished to use only his first name, was undone when someone asked about Thornhill's latest electric explanation of gravity.

"When I looked into it, I was literally flabbergasted at how stupid it was," he said. "I really was ashamed that I had ever listened to a word Thornhill said."

Now he tries to de-convert others in the Thunderbolts forum, a process that he calls his "work."

"Why, just now I finally made someone see the light," he said, and sends me a link to two recent posts (the before and the after). "Deprogramming someone is kind of like the thrill of catching a large fish," he said.

rest at
The People Who Believe Electricity Rules the Universe


it's a hoax.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I agree on your description of the "Newtonian gravity", but i don´t think the Einsteinian model is that much better.

Einsteins "rubber sheet gravity model" and his "curvation of space-time" is highly speculative and STILL bound to the Newtonial gravity model instead of taking a new and logical approach to the very phenomenon of motions in the Universe.

Please link to the source theory with equations that also explain Mercurys perihillion, explains all of the time dillation effects and equations that we use to correct GPS times that also predicts gravitational lensing and gravity waves.
Explain how your "atmosphere lensing" can explain not just strong lensing but weak lensing and microlensing.
The angle of deflection is calculated extremely precise with general relativity and we can measure images separated by arcoseconds. What the theory predicts we see to a minute detail.

These issues don´t need any "gravity model" at all to explain. And you don´t explain Mercury´s perihelion just by calculus. You have to know of the causal matters in order to explain things.

Seen from the position of an object, "time dilation" is pure speculative nonsense and just a human invention. And your GPS satellites are not affected by any "gravity waves". They are just affected by the "windy slipstream" of the Earth´s rotational and orbital motion around the Sun. Possible also affected from fluctuations of the Earth´magnetic field and radiation pressure from the Sun, which is why they´re having troubles staying in position.

Regarding the "lensing", this is just light refraction and it all depends on what densities of gas and dust ithe light passes through on it´s way to the measuring instruments.

NOTE: When I´m criticising the "gravity models", I am foremostly thinking of the overall cosmological conditions and the ideas of formation as such. As for the rest, I´m criticising the very ideology behind the thoughts of the gravitational assumptions, NOT the calculations themselves.

 

[Native]

EU doesn't predict anything at all, it isn't a theory.
It's a mythology ctreated to suck money out of people who can't figure out how to debunk bad science.

Very scientific arguments indeed

Remember what I wrote earlier?

(I know there are some strange "planetary nutcase ideas" in the ThunderboltsProject based on misinterpreted Ancient Myths, but I think this video is a fair presentation of the PC and EU)

Did you watch this video? Did you ponder over it´s contents?

 

[Native]

That seed would eventually grow into a framework called "electric universe" theory, which Thornhill and David Talbott would later develop together and which would gain a fervent worldwide following.

You don´t need to inform me of anything in the ThunderboltsProject. I´ve been a member of the forum and was excluded twice just for having second opinions on the mythological confusions in the project. Read more here - Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - The Mythical Interpretations in the TBP - (My profile name = "Norman")

I also oppose the TBP ideas of "electric scarrings of planets". This assumption derives directly from the misinterpreted myths where "some planets once should have been very close to Earth" which is pure nonsense.

But i STILL like the strict scientific part of the Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe. Just look at the very plasmatic and electric conditions of the Sun and Earth.

 

[ratiocinator]

You still haven't explained the why "wishfull thinking based on assumptions and speculations" matches reality so closely and has made successful predictions of new, previously unseen, phenomena.

You could have named the assumed gravity model "The Donald Duck Model" and it STILL would have some succes as a calculation model...

How?

You still don't seem to grasp the problem you have. Say I make up the "Donald Duck Model" (DDM), then I go away, do my sums based on it, show that it matches all previous results in the relevant field, and come back and say "if the DDM is correct, I predict you should see X" where X is some phenomenon which nobody has ever seen or measured before.

If people do the experiments and do indeed find X and it measures exactly what the DDM predicted, how do you explain that if DDM is totally wrong?

What if it happens again with Y and Z? What are you thinking; blind luck?

How else do you propose we select theories if not by correct predictions and accurate models of the world?

 

[Native]

How?

You still don't seem to grasp the problem you have. Say I make up the "Donald Duck Model" (DDM), then I go away, do my sums based on it, show that it matches all previous results in the relevant field, and come back and say "if the DDM is correct, I predict you should see X" where X is some phenomenon which nobody has ever seen or measured before.

You mean sort of as with the predictions of "dark matter"? In this case your DDM - or all other models - newer will be confirmed because it is just a mental and intellectual suggestion.

"My problems" are the conventional assumptions in modern cosmology. They make fine mathematical calculus, but they ascribe these to an gravitational ideology which is just bunkers, hence my Donald Duck Model suggestion.

How else do you propose we select theories if not by correct predictions and accurate models of the world?

I suggest real observations is notised and understood BEFORE any theory, calculations and predictions are made at all.

Take the Galactic Rotation Curve as an example: Instead of hypothesizing something which isn´t observed i.e. "dark matter", the scientists should have followed the strict scientific method and revised or discarded the former theory and looked at the observation with "new eyes" and included other fundamental forces as a possible solution to the observation.

This didn´t happend and now modern cosmology is on it´s way to nothing at all, searching for all kind of "dark ghosts" everywhere.

 

[ratiocinator]

You mean sort of as with the predictions of "dark matter"? In this case your DDM - or all other models - newer will be confirmed because it is just a mental and intellectual suggestion.

You're still totally ignoring the problem. Yes the theories came up against a problem to which dark matter is a proposed solution but that doesn't make the previous, spectacular success disappear. Relativity predicted (for example) time dilation, frame dragging, and gravity waves.

I'll try again: was all that dumb luck? Coincidence?

"My problems" are the conventional assumptions in modern cosmology. They make fine mathematical calculus, but they ascribe these to an gravitational ideology which is just bunkers, hence my Donal Duck Model suggestion.

But the mathematics is based on the ideas about gravity - that's how it was derived.

I suggest real observations is notised and understood BEFORE any theory, calculations and predictions are made at all.

What do you mean? We already take all previous observations into account. The ideas about gravity managed to bring many different observations together into one framework - and it worked.

 

[Native]

You're still totally ignoring the problem. Yes the theories came up against a problem to which dark matter is a proposed solution but that doesn't make the previous, spectacular success disappear. Relativity predicted (for example) time dilation, frame dragging, and gravity waves.

You don´t get it do you? The "previous succes" of celestial motions was directly contradicted regarding the galactic rotation curve observation, and the scientific method demands a rethinking/revision/rejection and not inventing metaphysical black forces. That´s the huge problem of modern cosmology and not MY problem.

But the mathematics is based on the ideas about gravity - that's how it was derived.

The celestial motions of the planets in our the Solar System were known long before "gravity" was invented. There also were empirical calculations of these motions long before "gravity" was invented.

Then came along Newton and postulated his gravity model out of his "apple-pie" observations onto the celestial motions and OF COURSE these calcualtion still fits - BUT the very ideology of Newtonian Gravity is just an invention wich isn´t causally explained at all. Even Newton admitted this himself.

What do you mean? We already take all previous observations into account. The ideas about gravity managed to bring many different observations together into one framework - and it worked.

It certainly didn´t work in the case of the galactic rotation curve observation! "Previous observations" in this matter was the celestial planetary motions and these didn´t fit the observations in galaxies i.e. the model was contradicted.

I´m afraid your "framework" mostly are based on ad hoc asumptions of patches fitted to confirm a model which basically is contradicted and which could have been logically and naturally explained by including other fundamental forces than the assumed "gravity", but the scientists were hopelessly stucked and locked in their gravitational ideas.

 

[ratiocinator]

You don´t get it do you? The "previous succes" of celestial motions was directly contradicted regarding the galactic rotation curve observation, and the scientific method demands a rethinking/revision/rejection and not inventing metaphysical black forces.

Sorry but this is just silly. You can't contradict previous successes. GR did, and continues, to make very accurate predictions that you have still not even attempted to explain.

The galactic rotation doesn't fit unless you add unseen matter (which is all dark matter is). Some new observation that doesn't fit need might point to some need to change a previously successful theory but you can't just ignore the previous success.

The anomaly regarding Mercury in Newtonian gravitation didn't, and could not, negate its success. Einstein had to explain why Newton's theory had been so accurate in the past. The same applies to anybody who thinks they can replace GR.

I don't see why you can't grasp this.

The celestial motions of the planets in our the Solar System were known long before "gravity" was invented. There also were empirical calculations of these motions long before "gravity" was invented.

Yes, and Newtonian gravity manages to explain why those methods worked and also unified those observations with phenomena on Earth.

Then came along Newton and postulated his gravity model out of his "apple-pie" observations onto the celestial motions and OF COURSE these calcualtion still fits - BUT the very ideology of Newtonian Gravity is just an invention wich isn´t causally explained at all. Even Newton admitted this himself.

It was more of an explanation than Kepler had.

Look, this is Newton's law of gravitation:

This is Coulomb's law of electrostatic force:

Given the similarity, why do you like one and think the other is so ridiculous?

 

[ChristineM]

You don´t get it do you? The "previous succes" of celestial motions was directly contradicted regarding the galactic rotation curve observation, and the scientific method demands a rethinking/revision/rejection and not inventing metaphysical black forces. That´s the huge problem of modern cosmology and not MY problem.

The celestial motions of the planets in our the Solar System were known long before "gravity" was invented. There also were empirical calculations of these motions long before "gravity" was invented.

Then came along Newton and postulated his gravity model out of his "apple-pie" observations onto the celestial motions and OF COURSE these calcualtion still fits - BUT the very ideology of Newtonian Gravity is just an invention wich isn´t causally explained at all. Even Newton admitted this himself.

It certainly didn´t work in the case of the galactic rotation curve observation! "Previous observations" in this matter was the celestial planetary motions and these didn´t fit the observations in galaxies i.e. the model was contradicted.

I´m afraid your "framework" mostly are based on ad hoc asumptions of patches fitted to confirm a model which basically is contradicted and which could have been logically and naturally explained by including other fundamental forces than the assumed "gravity", but the scientists were hopelessly stucked and locked in their gravitational ideas.

Two points
First. "gravity was invented"??? That says everything about your comprehension

Second word salad

 

[Native]

You're still totally ignoring the problem. Yes the theories came up against a problem to which dark matter is a proposed solution but that doesn't make the previous, spectacular success disappear. Relativity predicted (for example) time dilation, frame dragging, and gravity waves.

Even the time dillation, frame dragging and gravity waves are just "gravity ghosts".
All rotational and orbital motions in our Solar System derives directly from the central formation in our Milky Way galaxy from which center the Solar System once was made and send out from teh center via the bars and further out in the galactic surroundings. This outgoing motion is STIIL at work and it fits the observed galactic rotation curve and it also explains the increasing distances between the Sun and the Earth and also between the Earth and the Moon.

The Newtonian "frame-dragging" is - once again - based on the wrong perception of celestial motions in our Solar System which is determined by the galactic formation and rotation.

Just think of it: Well outside the Earth´s atmosphere there is NO Earth gravitational dragging force left at hand. How then can the Earth have any influences at all on the orbital motion of the Moon, causing this assumed "frame-dragging" effect? This is directly unbelievable and very speculative indeed.