Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am serious. Of course you most likely do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. If you did you would realize why there isn't any for the EU model.What? Get real please! I hate to discuss with ghosts
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Newton - The Last Of The Magicians
- Thread starter Native
- Start date
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
SURE! The calculations works nicely as they are fit to follow the empirically observed planets.
But the CAUSES AND COSMIC CONNECTIONS are totally left out of the explanatons. Here the "gravity" is thought to govern it all and this ghost haunts the overall perspective in cosmos and skewes the perceptions in all levels.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, they predict the motion before it occurs.
If you can't provide any predictions then your model is of no value.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
You´re not just making circual arguments but now you also invent convenient Strawmen in order to back up your nothingness.
Just because you have NO IDEA of how the EM works, you cannot circularly conclude that your fellow debaters dont understand what they are talking about, can you Mr. Strawman?
Last edited:
OK. So *they work nicely*.
I'd debate that, but it is ultimately irrelevant. The calculations work. THAT IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED.
And it is far from being a trivial thing to accomplish.
Then give detailed calculations based on your viewpoint to show a better fit to the actual observations. In particular, within the solar system, you should be able to use your theory to give the positions of the planets to within an arc second over the course of a century. That is the level of accuracy you need to be taken seriously in this.
So, let's see detailed results at the level of the solar system. We have the observational data. We can give as much as you would like. Take that data, say up to 1960, and put it into your theory and make any prediction of the position of the planets currently. If you can do so without using gravity, then you win. You get to have your ideas heard at the next level.
Yes, this is crucial. Take the data up to some point and *predict* what will happen after that. Given that we can predict the timing of lunar eclipses to the second and do so a century ahead of time, that takes a fair degree of 'understanding' of the system.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Of course they do! Once known, my Grand Mother can predict the very same.
Read carefully now: They STILL don´t explain WHY the planets mowes as observed!
They STILL assumes "gravity" to be the cause of the motions, when the causes REALLY derives from the galactic motion and formation itself.
These gravitational assumptions are just cosmic ghosts.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
So you just judge this to be irrelevant BEFORE you debate this? What kind of a scientific debate is this? Good Grief!
Yes, it is irrelevant. Unless you can do detailed calculations that match actual observations, any amount of philosophizing is completely irrelevant.
On the other hand, if you can do detailed calculations and those calculations fit the observations, any amount of philosophical discourse is equally irrelevant.
The *whole game* is whether you can make detailed predictions that match observation. That is the *only* thing that is relevant in a scientific theory.
And if the calculations accurately fit the observations, that is irrelevant.
But, of course, the actual descriptions used *do* give the causes for the motion. The causes are the gravitational effects of the sun and other planets.
Well, that is your claim. Now back your claim up with detailed calculations that match observations. Use your theory to predict when the next lunar eclipse will be *to the second* and you have done the *first* step.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
You just don´t fool me
This was a known fact in many of the ancient cultures - and they possibly knew nothing at all of the strange idea of "gravity".Dont get too scientifically cocky over nothing at all.
Last edited:
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
And the fact that the entire Solar System is orbiting another assumed "gravitational center" in the Milky Way, is entirely indifferent, you think?
You just don´t get it do you?
I already admitted that the calculations are just fine - but the causal, natural and philosophical explanations just sucks, completely drowned in all kinds of mental and intellectual speculations.
In this way modern scientists claims all things to be of gravitational nature where the nature itself speaks of all other fundamental forces but gravity.
On the scale of the solar system and to the level of accuracy that we can achieve? yes.
Good. That ends the debate because that is all that is required.
We have two viewpoints here.
One has detailed calculations that agree with observations (as you admit above). it *does* have causes, but not the ones you seem to want.
The other has the causes you want, but no actual calculations, and no details, just general statements.
Guess which viewpoint wins in a scientific discussion? Hint: it isn't the second one.
You just don´t fool me
Not at the level of predicting to the *second*. Often, they could predict a day, but not a location. And accuracy to within an hour was beyond them.
I'm not. But I also won't deny the obvious successes of the science we have.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No your grandmother cannot. You see one must be able to do the math.
I have found that people that can't do the math seem to think that one answer is as good as any other. That is not the case. And as you pointed out earlier, by your own standards people should be ignoring you. You should at least be able to do the math so that you can understand Newtonian mechanics.
ecco
Veteran Member
ecco:
- Heliocentricity would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
- Evolution would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
- The expanding universe would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
- Plate tectonics would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
- The scablands would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
Then how do you explain the acceptance, by the scientific community, of...Because I know from own experiences and from lots of others who have tried to get articles through the Peer Review system.
Consensus reviewers simply can´t see the new ideas - very much like on this debate
- Heliocentricity
- Evolution
- The expanding universe
- Plate tectonics
- The scablands
Here, on this forum, you, or anyone, can post all kinds of BS "theories". We have no standards. But in the real world, ya gotta know what you're talkin' about.
ecco
Veteran Member
You accuse me of being intellectually lazy. However, I have familiarized myself with the subject. As I pointed out earlier, I followed your multiple dead-end links and also found there is a much larger group that shares some of your beliefs. If I was "intellectually lazy" I would not have taken the time to do that.
One reason I followed your links is that I have found that often people post links to articles that allegedly support their assertions. However, upon actually reading the articles, I often find that the articles in no way support the poster's assertions. If you don't like my exposing your incorrect claims, then, in the future, don't make them.
Lastly, you accuse me of making "negative personal comments" but excuse yourself for falsely labeling me "intellectually lazy". That seems rather hypocritical.
ecco
Veteran Member
See above post #297...
Furthermore, I am not the only one who disagrees with your "theories". All of mainstream science (ya know, the people who really study these matters) rejects your "theories".
ecco
Veteran Member
Every new concept has always been peer reviewed. The only difference is that now it is formalized. Just look at the debates surrounding some of Einstein's thoughts and concepts. There was great dissension and debate. In some cases Einstein's ideas prevailed, in others, they did not.
The difference between you and the EUers and the Einsteins and Bohrs is not a peer review process. The difference is that the Einsteins and Bohrs were able to support there views with evidence whereas you and the EUers have no evidence.
The main reason that they have "NO CLUES of the ... cosmological implications" is because you and yours cannot present any evidence to support your allegations.
Actually, the opposite is true. They hinder stupid persons from having their stupid ideas taken seriously.
Gol-lee, Mr Jones, everyone is just so biased against me and my new ideas that they just won't even give me a chance to publish my articles. Boo hoo.
ecco
Veteran Member
Here...
Simulator online revolution orbits of the planets — Astronoo
...is one of many apps that shows where the planets are, where they are going to be, and where they were in the past.
These programs use the formulas of gravity to calculate the motions and past and future positions.
Astronomers who take pictures of the night skies can easily verify the correctness of, at least, where planets were in the past.
A test of the correctness of EU would merely involve someone writing a program showing past and future planetary positions with all calculations based on EU instead of gravity.
Surely, among the many believers in the Thunderbolts Project, there must be a few people trained in writing computer programs.