Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[ratiocinator]

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.

This appears to be baseless assertions. And you still haven't explained the complete success of gravity within the solar system.

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.

I think you're confused; frame dragging is a relativistic effect that's very small in the case of Earth - but was successfully measured and matched the theory.

Just think of it: Well outside the Earth´s atmosphere there is NO Earth gravitational dragging force left at hand.

This is simply nonsense. Gravity extends far beyond the atmosphere and, yet again, the evidence is the complete success in predicting the motions of planets, moons, asteroids, and comets - together with our ability to use it to navigate spacecraft around the solar system well enough to land on a comet.

Something you don't even seem to even grasp is a massive problem for anybody who is trying to deny it.

 

[Native]

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 silliness is that modern science itself don´t compare one finding with another, but just hold onto the observations which fits their uotdated textbook lectures.

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 galactic rotation curve pattern can ONLY be explained by including the fundamental electromagnetic force and it´s motions of magnetic fields."Gravity" is totally lost in this situation of explaining a motion wich clearly seems to be a repelling motion from the galactic center. The very barred structure in our galaxy is an evidence of this outgoing motion.

If a theory is cntradicted in such degrees that science needs to invent unseen matters, such an old model certainly should be discarded on the spot as the scientific method claims.

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.

As told several times, I don´t question the calculations but just the gravitational ideology which is specutively assumed to be causes of motions.
I know this is hard to grasp for "textbook" persons who are hypnotized and indoctrinated to believe in invented "apple-pie" forces.

 

[Native]

This appears to be baseless assertions. And you still haven't explained the complete success of gravity within the solar system.

Take it easy now will you? I FULLY ACCEPTS the SCIENTIFIC succeses of calculations - But i reject the GRAVITATIONAL IDEOLOGY which is ASSUMED to be the causes.

The earlier proposed cosmological Donald Duck Model would have the similar successes without including the term of gravity and just caunting on the empirical known motions, wich were known long before Newton was a glimse in the parents eyes.

This is simply nonsense. Gravity extends far beyond the atmosphere . . .

Have you ever given this strange action-at-distance postulation some serious independent out-of-textbook-considerations?

Something you don't even seem to even grasp is a massive problem for anybody who is trying to deny it.

In a fair debate most persons would have said and admitted that this problem at least goes both ways

 

[ratiocinator]

I FULLY ACCEPTS the SCIENTIFIC succeses of calculations - But i reject the GRAVITATIONAL IDEOLOGY which is ASSUMED to be the causes.

How do you imagine the calculations are done? I'll tell you (in the Newtonian case), they put numbers into this formula:

Basically, the formula is the theory. You can't separate the calculations from the underlying theory.

Have you ever given this strange action-at-distance postulation some serious independent out-of-textbook-considerations?

There is no action at a distance in GR. Both Newton's gravitation and Coulomb's law of electrostatic force, that I posted earlier:

have the same sort of "action at a distance". In the case of electromagnetism, it was resolved by Maxwell's field equations, in the case of Newton's gravitation, by GR.

In a fair debate most persons would have said that this problem at least goes both ways

Why? I'm not saying that an established theory, with an incredibly accurate track record, is wrong.

 

[Native]

How do you imagine the calculations are done? I'll tell you (in the Newtonian case), they put numbers into this formula:

Basically, the formula is the theory. You can't separate the calculations from the underlying theory.

So what? If you have such a formula as a theory, you can assume all kinds of forces into it which fits your ideaology of measured and known celestial motions.

It can "calculatively explain" the motions, but it STIIL doesn´t EXPLAIN the causal dynamics and what really are the causes of the motions - which isn´t "gravity" at all.

There is no action at a distance in GR. Both Newton's gravitation and Coulomb's law of electrostatic force, that I posted earlier:

Well, earlier you claimed the gravity force of the Earth to act long outside the Earth atmosphere - and then it s very convenient for you now to use the GR as having the opposite claims.

This is just another evidence of how the cosmological models in general are confused and conflicted.

Native said: ↑
In a fair debate most persons would have said that this problem at least goes both ways

Why? I'm not saying that an established theory, with an incredibly accurate track record, is wrong.

As said before, the cosmological Donald Duck Model could have provided the similar accuracy by discarding the newtonian gravity ideology and just take the empirally known motions into the calculations. In fact the DDM model would be even more accurate when leaving out the Newtonian apple-pie ideology.

I neither say the calculations are wrong - it´s just the gravity ideology which is conflated with the real causes of celestial and universal motions - and obviously complete useless on the large cosmological scales.

 

[ratiocinator]

So what? If you have such a formula as a theory, you can assume all kinds of forces into it which fits your ideaology of measured and known celestial motions.

Seriously? Did you not understand the formula? It says that there is a force between any two masses - that's what gravity is. How on earth do you think it is compatible with "all kinds of forces"?

Well, earlier you claimed the gravity force of the Earth to act long outside the Earth atmosphere - and then it s very convenient for you now to use the GR as having the opposite claims.

You misunderstand - they both say that gravity extends beyond the atmosphere (I have no idea what you think the atmosphere has to do with action at a distance). There is no 'spooky' instantaneous action at a distance (which I assumed you meant). The action takes finite time and is via a known mechanism. The same is true for electromagnetism - it too acts at a distance through empty space but takes a finite time and is via a known mechanism.

 

[Native]

Seriously? Did you not understand the formula? It says that there is a force between any two masses - that's what gravity is. How on earth do you think it is compatible with "all kinds of forces"?

Yes i did. You take long time empirically known motions of planets and assume these to be caused by "gravity" and it´s assumed attraction between two bodies.

I just, for the 117. time, claims that you can call the long time empirically known motions of planets etc. etc. just what you like, and give the damn in the Newtonian ideas of the assumed one-way-force-of-long-distant-actions.

Except from giving you and your fellow scientist the feeling of succesfull calculations on the local celestially know motions, this Newtonian Ideology doctrines confuses everybody on the overall cosmological scales and it mentally hinders real understanding of motions in cosmos.

You misunderstand - they both say that gravity extends beyond the atmosphere (I have no idea what you think the atmosphere has to do with action at a distance).

Sorry if I misunderstood this. When I refers to the atmosphere this is because it is conflated with the assumption of gravity. (Both areas has the similar laws)

here is no 'spooky' instantaneous action at a distance (which I assumed you meant). The action takes finite time and is via a known mechanism.

What factual and concrete mechanism would that be?

According to this article, the electromagnetism is not working finately but infinately.- Fundamental Forces

 

[ratiocinator]

You take long time empirically known motions of planets and assume these to be caused by "gravity" and it´s assumed attraction between two bodies.

Gravity not only retrodicts the previously known motions of the planets, it also applies on earth, and allows much more detailed calculations of objects moving in the solar system.

You still don't seem able to grasp the significance of this. It isn't an interpretation of previously known facts, it made new predictions. General relativity predicted entirely new phenomena.

You have given no explanation of those successes.

Does two celestial bodies act on each other at distances or not?

Yes.

Except from giving you and your fellow scientist the feeling of succesfull calculations

It's not a feeling - it's reality. Using GR, we can make accurate predictions that cannot be made in other ways.

When I refers to the atmosphere this is because it is conflated with the assumption of gravity. (Both areas has the similar laws)

They don't have similar laws at all.

According to this article, the electromagnetism is not working finately but infinately.- Fundamental Forces

You're confusing finite time of propagation with (potentially) infinite distance. Although both electrostatic forces and gravity were initially conceived as instantaneous forces acting over distance, both have now been included in local theories (no instantaneous action at a distance - both are limited by the speed of light).

 

[Native]

Gravity not only retrodicts the previously known motions of the planets, it also applies on earth, and allows much more detailed calculations of objects moving in the solar system.

These motions were known long before "gravity calculations" allowed them to move. Just think of that.

Native said: ↑
When I refers to the atmosphere this is because it is conflated with the assumption of gravity. (Both areas has the similar laws)

They don't have similar laws at all.

Both atmospheric pressure and the assumed gravity acts accordingly to the same inverse square law, This conflation fooled Newton to invent the gravity ideas in the first place.

You're confusing finite time of propagation with (potentially) infinite distance. Although both electrostatic forces and gravity were initially conceived as instantaneous forces acting over distance, both have now been included in local theories (no instantaneous action at a distance - both are limited by the speed of light).

This light speed assumption is not consistant and it is even disproved - Speed of Light No Longer the Limit

 

[ratiocinator]

These motions were known long before "gravity calculations" allowed them to move. Just think of that.

No, they weren't. Nobody did the calculations to land a probe on a comet, nobody calculated gravity waves or time dilation.

You have come nowhere near an attempt to explain all the new predictions that the theories of gravity have made. You can't wish them away just by repeating that basic planetary motion was known previously.

Both atmospheric pressure and the assumed gravity acts accordingly to the same inverse square law

No, they don't: Atmospheric pressure - and you still haven't explained how we even have atmospheric pressure without gravity.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Both atmospheric pressure and the assumed gravity acts accordingly to the same inverse square law

No, they don't: Atmospheric pressure - and you still haven't explained how we even have atmospheric pressure without gravity.

It´s just because you and the Newtonian Gravity Ideology fails to
recognize the atmosphere as a real pressure down on the Earth and conflates this pressure as gravitational attraction from the Earth.

BTW, you wrote earlier that:

ratiocinator said: ↑
here is no 'spooky' instantaneous action at a distance (which I assumed you meant). The action takes finite time and is via a known mechanism.

You ignored my question:

What factual and known concrete mechanism would that be?

Please describe the dynamics of this mechanism.

 

[ecco]

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.

You have a revolutionary model of the universe and gravity. Yet, here you are on a religious forum. I don't understand why you are not putting together a thesis and presenting this to the scientific community.

 

[ecco]

"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."

The key portions being...

the 'electric universe' ... it's sheer crackpottery like homeopathy and astrology,​

 

[ratiocinator]

It´s just because you and the Newtonian Gravity Ideology fails to
recognize the atmosphere as a real pressure down on the Earth and conflates this pressure as gravitational attraction from the Earth.

How does it have a pressure without gravity? What is the 'spooky' unexplained pressure? What are its dynamics? What formulas govern its operation?

And: why does gravity acting on atmosphere explain it perfectly - along with endless other phenomena to a precision that you have still not even attempted to explain...?

You ignored my question:

Considering how much I've said that you've ignored, this is a little rich, but...

Please describe the dynamics of this mechanism.

It's explained by general relativity - and the overwhelming evidence for this is its string of accurate predictions of previously unseen or unexplained phenomena. All of which you keep ignoring...

 

[ecco]

You have a revolutionary model of the universe and gravity. Yet, here you are on a religious forum. I don't understand why you are not putting together a thesis and presenting this to the scientific community.

If a theory is cntradicted in such degrees that science needs to invent unseen matters, such an old model certainly should be discarded on the spot as the scientific method claims.

Since posting #192 (copied above), I've come to see that it is not your evolutionary model of the universe and gravity. You are just one believer among many of this EU stuff.

So, I'll revise my above comment...You-all have a revolutionary model of the universe and gravity. Yet, some (at least you) are on a religious forum. I don't understand why you-all are not putting together a thesis and presenting this to the scientific community.

Einstein revised Newton - with provable facts.
Hubble toppled Hoyle - with provable facts.
Alfred Wegener described Plate Tectonics.

Science loves and accepts new ideas. Why doesn't science accept your "theories"?

 

[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.


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.

First GR does not say satellites are effected by "gravity waves". It's time dillation from special and general relativity.
Looking at electric universe explanations of GPS corrections all I see are crank theories. In reality both relativities do not cancel out and satellite positions and times are triangulated from several sources. This is never dealt with. From the sound of your explanation you're clearly not investigating this theory in any depth.

GPS would be hundreds of meters off just like Hawking mentioned in Brief History of Time.


It's hilarious that you think "dust" accounts for weak, strong and micro lensing. You think dust causes multiple images of a single galaxy to appear a few arcsecond apart, just as relativity predicts?
With some lensing images appear with a time delay on some objects. From dust?

Time dillation has been observed in particle accelerators to a much greater degree than ever before.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 120405 (2014) - Test of Time Dilation Using Stored ${\mathrm{Li}}^{+}$ Ions as Clocks at Relativistic Speed

Einstein's "Time Dilation" Prediction Verified


Abstract
We present the concluding result from an Ives-Stilwell-type time dilation experiment using 7Li+ ions confined at a velocity of β=v/c=0.338 in the storage ring ESR at Darmstadt. A Λ-type three-level system within the hyperfine structure of the 7Li+3S1→3P2 line is driven by two laser beams aligned parallel and antiparallel relative to the ion beam. The lasers’ Doppler shifted frequencies required for resonance are measured with an accuracy of <4×10−9 using optical-optical double resonance spectroscopy. This allows us to verify the special relativity relation between the time dilation factor γ and the velocity β, γ√1−β2=1 to within ±2.3×10−9 at this velocity. The result, which is singled out by a high boost velocity β, is also interpreted within Lorentz invariance violating test theories.

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.

General Relativity uses tensors, it's a geometrical description.
Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia

The correction by 42.98″ is 3/2 multiple of classical prediction with PPN parameters γ = β = 1 Thus the effect can be fully explained by general relativity. More recent calculations based on more precise measurements have not materially changed the situation.

In general relativity the perihelion shift σ, expressed in radians per revolution, is approximately given by
where L is the semi-major axis, T is the orbital period, c is the speed of light, and e is the orbital eccentricity (see: Two-body problem in general relativity).


Although earlier measurements of planetary orbits were made using conventional telescopes, more accurate measurements are now made with radar. The total observed precession of Mercury is 574.10″±0.65 per century[7] relative to the inertial ICRF. This precession can be attributed to the following causes:
GR predicts:
532.3035 Gravitational tugs of other solar bodies
0.0286 Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment)
42.9799 Gravitoelectric effects (Schwarzschild-like)
−0.0020 Lense–Thirring precession
575.31 Total predicted
574.10±0.65 Observed

 

[joelr]

This light speed assumption is not consistant and it is even disproved - Speed of Light No Longer the Limit

Disproved?
You think modern physics is wrong but you think a pop-sci news story from ABC is definitely correct and means something is disproven?
Even though in the story they express doubt? Huh.

"Not everyone is convinced the NEC scientists did what they claim.

Aephraim Steinberg, a physicist at the University of Toronto, said the light particles coming out of the cesium chamber may not have been the same ones that entered, so he questions whether the speed of light was broken."

 

[Native]

You have a revolutionary model of the universe and gravity. Yet, here you are on a religious forum. I don't understand why you are not putting together a thesis and presenting this to the scientific community.

That´s easy to understand. The dogmatic Peer Review system aren´t fitted in order to accept alternative second thoughts at all.

 

[Native]

joelr said: ↑
"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."

The key portions being...
the 'electric universe' ... it's sheer crackpottery like homeopathy and astrology,

I´m surprised indeed! So you´ve now overcome your intellectual lazyness and studied the EU on the expert level?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
It´s just because you and the Newtonian Gravity Ideology fails to
recognize the atmosphere as a real pressure down on the Earth and conflates this pressure as gravitational attraction from the Earth.

How does it have a pressure without gravity? What is the 'spooky' unexplained pressure? What are its dynamics? What formulas govern its operation?

It´s the simple weigth of the gaseous elements in the atmosphere which gives us the sense of weight because of a downwards pressure. Well outside the Earth there is no/little pressure from these elements which is conflated as Newton´s gravity model on the Earth.

And: why does gravity acting on atmosphere explain it perfectly - along with endless other phenomena to a precision that you have still not even attempted to explain...?

The weight pressure of the atmospheric elements on the Earth is confused by Newton to be "gravity", so of course "gravity" can explain the pressure - and of course this pressure also can explain the idea of gravity on the Earth.

ratiocinator said: ↑
here is no 'spooky' instantaneous action at a distance (which I assumed you meant). The action takes finite time and is via a known mechanism.

I asked you to explain this mechanism and it´s dynamics

Your reply to this question:

It's explained by general relativity - and the overwhelming evidence for this is its string of accurate predictions of previously unseen or unexplained phenomena. All of which you keep ignoring...

Excuse me, but you haven´t explained anything at all of this assumed mechanics or it´s dynamics. You´re just "answering" with some assumptions of where gravity should be working, which is unbelieaveble since NO-ONE is able to explain what "gravity" is and how it works. It´s just pure assumptions and nothing more.