Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I KNOW. What do you propose yourself? Take a break in your armchair and think
-
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!
Public Education And Independent Self-Taught Research
- Thread starter Native
- Start date
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I don´t think so.
Of course it all depends on ones background of assembled informations - AND of ones critical and logical thinking. AND of ones skills of pattern recognition, and on being able to connect natural dots in a different way.
Or thinking a Solar System gravitational law to fit in galaxies
Sure - try this testing methodology on Big Bang and Black Holes and other unsolved cosmological matters - and then you have to go back to your philosophical armchair for more thinking.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
MY FINAL REPLY TO "GNOSTIC":
gnostic said: ↑
It is better to be systematic with replies, to avoid misunderstanding, putting with your tiresome paranoid fantasies and conspiracy theories, and your transparent misinformation.
THAT DOES IT PERMANENTLY FOR ME - "GNOSTIC" ARE NOW FIGURING ON MY IGNORE LIST FOR GOOD.
gnostic said: ↑
It is better to be systematic with replies, to avoid misunderstanding, putting with your tiresome paranoid fantasies and conspiracy theories, and your transparent misinformation.
THAT DOES IT PERMANENTLY FOR ME - "GNOSTIC" ARE NOW FIGURING ON MY IGNORE LIST FOR GOOD.
Last edited:
No. That is not what I said.Jeeezz Polymath
So "gravity" also pulls upwards in the atmosphere?
Gravity is a force. It describes acceleration, not speed or position. if the speed is large enough, then the particle has enough kinetic energy to exchange with the gravitational potential energy and 'escape'. The required escape velocity is computed easily enough and is the same as what a rocket needs to get away from the Earth.
How convenient. When it doesn apply logically and can´t be explained naturally, you just can chose freely the one and another what counts in the specific situations
The description is done the same way in all cases. But, just like a ball thrown will more speed will be able to go up higher, a molecule with more speed will be able to as well.
The forces aren't changing at all. And yes, a rising temperature means that more molecules will have the required escape velocity.
And if that is done, the predictions given are even less in agreement than gravity without dark matter.
Which preconditions and factual information? Give details.
I KNOW. What do you propose yourself? Take a break in your armchair and think
I propose that the cosmic dist and gas have almost nothing to do with motion in the solar system, let alone anything on Earth.
Which is done. And it works. That is all that is required.I don´t think so.
Of course it all depends on ones background of assembled informations - AND of ones critical and logical thinking. AND of ones skills of pattern recognition, and on being able to connect natural dots in a different way.
Or thinking a Solar System gravitational law to fit in galaxies
Sure - try this testing methodology on Big Bang and Black Holes and other unsolved cosmological matters - and then you have to go back to your philosophical armchair for more thinking.
When attempts are made using only E&M, they fail miserably. And that is all that is required to reject such.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
BTW:
OK, you try to let a bowling bell and a feather fall from an aeoroplane flying at 10.000 km and if you think it through in your armchair, you´ll get the real and natural hint of Newtons occult invention.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Well, not to Einstein and nor to me.
I bet you that "the weight pressure of air" is incorporated in these calculations.
Not correct according to this article.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said: ↑
It sure can - just get quite rid of the unexplainable gravitational ideas and insert the laws of electromagnetism working in the plasma stages in cosmic clouds of gas and dust.
Native said: ↑
I KNOW. What do you propose yourself? Take a break in your armchair and think
Just because I referred to "gas and dust" in space and in the Earth´s atmosphere, you interestingly and automatically connected this to the term, “orbital motions,” and claimed this cannot explain the planetary motions in the Solar System. But it really can.
Cosmic clouds of gas and dust also builds galaxies in where “Solar Systems” are formed and provides rotation and orbital motions from the formative force, you know by now: The attractive polarity in the strong electromagnetic force.
And the, on a smaller scale terrestrial connection, is the Earth´s magnetic field and it´s gaseous and dusty atmosphere. It´s only a question of having the philosophical pattern recognition skills.
It sure can - just get quite rid of the unexplainable gravitational ideas and insert the laws of electromagnetism working in the plasma stages in cosmic clouds of gas and dust.
You get what you´re expecting according to your theory biases. Get some new and expect some new discoveries. If a fundamental force cannot explain certain conditions and require human inventions as dark matter, use other forces.
You have already several times rejected my, somewhat detailed, explanations of the formation of the Milky Way and the Solar System, and here I´ll just refer to the "inside-out" formation of the Milky Way which perfectly confirm my several decades perception and explanation.
Native said: ↑
I KNOW. What do you propose yourself? Take a break in your armchair and think
At least you got the "almost" included in your sentence
Just because I referred to "gas and dust" in space and in the Earth´s atmosphere, you interestingly and automatically connected this to the term, “orbital motions,” and claimed this cannot explain the planetary motions in the Solar System. But it really can.
Cosmic clouds of gas and dust also builds galaxies in where “Solar Systems” are formed and provides rotation and orbital motions from the formative force, you know by now: The attractive polarity in the strong electromagnetic force.
And the, on a smaller scale terrestrial connection, is the Earth´s magnetic field and it´s gaseous and dusty atmosphere. It´s only a question of having the philosophical pattern recognition skills.
Last edited:
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said: ↑
I don´t think so.
Of course it all depends on ones background of assembled informations - AND of ones critical and logical thinking. AND of ones skills of pattern recognition, and on being able to connect natural dots in a different way.
Or thinking a Solar System gravitational law to fit in galaxies
Sure - try this testing methodology on Big Bang and Black Holes and other unsolved cosmological matters - and then you have to go back to your philosophical armchair for more thinking.
All you have cosmologically are confirmed biases in theories which only survives because of human inventions and corrections of the Universe.
I don´t think so.
Of course it all depends on ones background of assembled informations - AND of ones critical and logical thinking. AND of ones skills of pattern recognition, and on being able to connect natural dots in a different way.
Or thinking a Solar System gravitational law to fit in galaxies
Sure - try this testing methodology on Big Bang and Black Holes and other unsolved cosmological matters - and then you have to go back to your philosophical armchair for more thinking.
Get real will you? So now we at last have a conventional accepted Theory of Everything?
All you have cosmologically are confirmed biases in theories which only survives because of human inventions and corrections of the Universe.
Be a litte specific and try to tell me HOW and WHY.
Last edited:
Try a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum and see what happens. The air resistance is more relevant to the feather. Without air, they fall at the same rate.
I bet you that "the weight pressure of air" is incorporated in these calculations.[/QUOTE]
And you would be wrong.
Huh? No, that article has *nothing* to do with what I said. It has to do with the *very small* differences in the gravitational field at the surface due to differences in local density of rocks. Such gravitational surveys have been done for decades and are used to discover ores and oil underground.
Which, by the way, shows that gravity actually exists.
But the dynamical details of gravity and E&M are too different to 'just insert'. If you want to dispense with gravity, you have to do ALL of the calculations over with E&M as the force. And, when that is done, the results of the calculations simply don't fit the observations (mostly because of the lack of enough charged matter to act upon).
I find it cute that you think you gave a 'somewhat detailed explanation' at any point. Instead, you gave rather vague, hand-waving generalities with *no* details at all, *no* correspondence with actual observations, *no* calculations based on the known properties of E&M (not even back of the envelope to show some degree of plausibility).
Native said: ↑
I KNOW. What do you propose yourself? Take a break in your armchair and think
At least you got the "almost" included in your sentence
Whatever influence exists is far, far below anything detectable.
Prove it. Give detailed calculations, based on known plasma physics and actual data to describe the motion of the Earth.
Explain, using *only* E&M, why the orbit of the Earth is close to being an ellipse.
Huh? Do you realize that the regions of gas and dust are so dispersed they would not be able to exert any significant force on a planet? You seem to think the planets are being blown around the sun by the force of this gas and dust. But that simply isn't the case: once you get away from the atmosphere's of the planets, the space in between is an almost perfect vacuum---a much better one than we can even produce on Earth. There is not enough gas and dust to affect the motion at all.
And the, on a smaller scale terrestrial connection, is the Earth´s magnetic field and it´s gaseous and dusty atmosphere. It´s only a question of having the philosophical pattern recognition skills.[/QUOTE]
gnostic
The Lost One
Gravity have more to with acceleration than velocity or speed.
Velocity and acceleration are related, but you need to remember something can move at constant velocity, that wold mean acceleration would be zero; the object is still moving even where there are no acceleration. It is when acceleration or deceleration are applied, that would involve the changes in velocity.
In the case of free falling objects, it is the acceleration that’s constant, not the speed.
Gravity is acceleration, and the Earth’s gravity is constant whether the objects are heavier or lighter.
Adding mass into the equations, the acceleration (gravity) still don’t change.
Plus, dropping objects from a plane isn’t the same as in the vacuum. Dropping bowling and feather the acceleration are the same for both objects, but then you would have to take into account air pressure and air friction, these will change the result of which objects would reach the ground first.
Edit: I forgot that since objects have masses, so inertia also play a part.
But in a vacuum, you don’t have to worry about air, therefore there are no pressure and no friction. They will fall and hit the ground at same time.
But the point you need to remember whether in vacuum or in no vacuum, acceleration for all falling objects are the same.
Your problem is that you are confusing gravity as force, it is isn’t, it is acceleration. Gravitational force is where you combine acceleration (gravity) and mass together.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You forgot about air resistance, didn't you. So what happens if we drop a feather and a bowling ball in the world's largest vacuum chamber? Surely the bowling ball will fall faster, isn't that why ir rings? But one needs to test that scientifically. I got a friend of mine to test this idea in the world's largest vacuum chamber. Both with air and more importantly without:
gnostic
The Lost One
@Native
As you can see in Brian Cox’s video, gravity or acceleration are the same with ball and feather in a vacuum chamber. No air will show that both objects will land at the same time.
Thank you, @Subduction Zone
Now, @Native, can you explain this experiment scientifically and mathematically with just EM and without gravity?
I don’t think you can. I certainly won’t be holding my breath
Last edited:
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I don´t investigate natural as such by removing parts of it´s natural contents.Take a flying trip and make your conclusions.
Native said: ↑
Well, not to Einstein and nor to me.
I bet you that "the weight pressure of air" is incorporated in these calculations.
You mean, it´s only at a spacecraft re-entrance the "the weight pressure of air" is accounted for?
No, this your skewed interpretation and decription of my explanations, rather fit the conventional model made up by occult assumptions.
Your mind doesn´t seem to like gaseous clouds be affected and rotated by a force which in itself are based on rotational and obital motions. Its apparently too much for you to imagine electromagnetically qualified atoms to be affected by external electromagnetic forces and assembled by its attractive polarity.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Test natural forces ind their natural conditions and don´t fiddle with natural causes. Take a trip high up in the Earth´s atmosphere with your friend and bowling ball and feather and see what happen.
Last edited:
Already done.
And you still have to explain why both the feather and the bowling ball fall in a vacuum. And why they fall at the same rate.
Also, since space is a vacuum, that is directly relevant to how things move in a vacuum.
Huh? The air pressure during re-entry is because the ship is moving through the atmosphere. It has *nothing* to do with the escape velocity.
Not at all too much. But you need to show that there are electromagnetic fields of the strength needed to produce such motions in neutral atoms. Also, you need to give details, based on Maxwll's equations, about how they are assembled due to those 'attractive polarities'.
Which is irrelevant if you want to study motion of things in a vacuum. You know, like the motion of planets.
The ball and feather both fall at the same rate in a vacuum. That alone shows that air pressure cannot be the basic reason for them falling.
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Just go outside in the free nature and make your own logical conclusions.
Sure, there is nothing but gravity everywhere in the observable universe because this is what you´ve been taught and you believe it despite it cannot be explained scientifically or causably by what dynamic means it should work.
So, you´re a true believer.
Last edited:
Native
Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Apparently, natural conditions isn´t something you take serious,