Is the moon getting nearer ?

[Native]

You would need to show that there was sufficient flow to have an affect on bodies.

If you were more observant, you would have notised my explanations of the EM formation in plasma. I´m not initially talking of EM moving larger bodies as such, but talking of the EM building larger bodies out of gas and dust in ionized cosmic clouds. Slowly a celestial body is build by the EM helical forces and motions in the galactic center and when reaching the critical phase of weight of an actual body, it is centrifugally slung out of the galactic center and furter out in the galactic surroundings.

For your information, tests of the EM affection of plasma have been made for decades and I found a link to these tests here - in this time equipped with your much beloved math, enjoy

Wrong, at the top of the atmosphere the force of gravity is very close to that at the surface. And please, don't use such terms as "assumed" unless you can prove it.

How far do you have you to travel out in the space in order to become weightless? What happened with your big "G"?

He did not need to explain it.

What kind of a scientific method is it to calculate with a force which wasn´t explained by the inventor and never has been explained? What kind of a "constant force" is it, when it needs hypothetical ad hoc inventions of dark this or that in order to fit to the theoretical and mathematical Standard Cosmology consensus of gravity theories?

Nope, there are not any peer reviewed papers on that. There is no explanation by EU believers, only hand waving.

It should be obvious and logical if you use a stronger fundamental force of energy, you´ll be able to move larger masses - and if you calculate with a stronger fundamental force it fits to larger amounts of masses i.e. stars and planets.

Beside this: You surely can find EM observations of galaxies if you dare, even as peer review in arXiv.org. I´ll just give you this one. Do you own further research and get astrophysically and cosmologically updated.

Okay, too much nonsense and ignorance. When you find a valid source that supports you get back to me. If you have a specific question ask it in a post by itself. Gish Gallops like this are both dishonest and take too much effort to respond to.

I have these specific question for you:
1) Why are you using sidestepping maneuvers in our discussions?
2) How come it "takes too much effort" to read a plain text and to respond to the contents? it isn´t "Rocket Science" - or is it to you?
3) What does the expression "Gish Gallops" mean in the scientific consensus Standard Cosmology? Or maybe it isn´t an objective expression at all, but just a simple emotional and subjective kinder garden expression?

 

[ratiocinator]

Regarding your comment about "Gravity on the other hand is a force that only adds", this hypothesis is factually and per Standard Model definition itself of "gravity", is directly wrong.

The Standard Model (if you mean it in sense of the model that covers the other forces and particles) doesn't include gravity.

There are four known forces. The two nuclear forces are very short range. This leaves electromagnetism and gravity. They are both forces that are proportional to the product of the charges/masses divided by the square of the distance.

Mass is always positive but electric charge can be negative, so gravity is always an attraction but electromagnetism can repel. Atoms and larger objects tend to be electrically neutral because they contain equal positive and negative charges. In contrast, the gravity of every single atom in the Earth (for example) adds together to produce the Earth's gravity.

That's why gravity dominates the solar system.

Using this theory explains the motions of all of the objects in the solar system (some slight deviations are explained by Einstein). Every single space mission has used gravity calculations to get were they were going.

If you're going to claim it's wrong you need to explain the amazing accuracy.

...the "G" on the Earth is confused for the simple atmospheric pressure, which works with the same principle laws as the assumed gravity.

How do you think we get atmospheric pressure without gravity? Atmospheric pressure is because the atmosphere is pulled towards the Earth by gravity.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Regarding your comment about "Gravity on the other hand is a force that only adds", this hypothesis is factually and per Standard Model definition itself of "gravity", is directly wrong.

The Standard Model (if you mean it in sense of the model that covers the other forces and particles) doesn't include gravity.

OK, that´s me being generalizing, sorry and thanks for the correction.

There are four known forces. The two nuclear forces are very short range. This leaves electromagnetism and gravity. They are both forces that are proportional to the product of the charges/masses divided by the square of the distance.

Are you familiar with how the 3 fundamental electromagnetic forces works on the ionized plasma stages and with different charges?

Mass is always positive but electric charge can be negative, so gravity is always an attraction but electromagnetism can repel. Atoms and larger objects tend to be electrically neutral because they contain equal positive and negative charges. In contrast, the gravity of every single atom in the Earth (for example) adds together to produce the Earth's gravity.

When you mention "atoms" in connection with "gravity", don´t you then also count on the electromagnetic qualities and strength? The big issue to me is here: What is it really that glues atoms together?

Using this theory explains the motions of all of the objects in the solar system (some slight deviations are explained by Einstein). Every single space mission has used gravity calculations to get were they were going.

If you're going to claim it's wrong you need to explain the amazing accuracy.

I of course cannot claim the calculations to be wrong, but I can claim the PERCEPTIONAL CAUSES to be questionable. I mean: The planetary motions and orbital rhythms were known long before Newton and so were the geometric principles and it´s calculative knowledge. The "only" newer Newtonian addition, generally speaking, was the escape velocity and direction, which is used in space missions.

If I should play the devils advocate, I would like to claim the weight of the gaseous atmospheric pressure to be the real cause of "apples falling to the ground when its stem brakes". The higher up in the atmosphere, the lesser the weight and when you reach far enough outside the Earth, you are close to be weightless. (How did the apple up in the three overcome the Earth´s gravity force in the first place?)

If so, almost all astronomical calculations could have been made without Newton´s dynamically unexplained "gravitational force".

How do you think we get atmospheric pressure without gravity? Atmospheric pressure is because the atmosphere is pulled towards the Earth by gravity.

1) The Earth spherical magnetic field holds most of the atmosphere close to the Earth. The weight of the atoms and molecules in the atmosphere causes an average - and variating - pressure:
2) "Wind" pressure from the Sun and pressure from the orbital motion of the Earth creates pressure.
3) Global and local weather system motions causes higher or lesser pressures - making scientist to believe that even gravity fluctuates in some locations. (Sorry, I couldn´t hold it back)

Pull or press, that´s the big question to me.

 

[gnostic]

I´m fully aware of this standard answer and I don´t buy it at all. The most obvious evidence of electromagnetic activity is of course the strong galactic gamma ray jets out from the galactic poles. And where there is electric current, you know there also is a perpendicular magnetic field and it is this field which creates the flattish galactic disks.

Your reply is the most given answer from Standard Cosmologists: "Oh yes, electromagnetism can be found all over in the Universe, but it doesn´t do anything" - even that the assumed "fundamental force of gravity" is the weakest of all fundamental forces.

Regarding your comment about "Gravity on the other hand is a force that only adds", this hypothesis is factually and per Standard Model definition itself of "gravity", is directly wrong.

It isn´t gravity which binds atoms together in the Universe is it? Besides this, your statement are contradictionary since "gravity in the Standard Model can be that strong that it assumingly explodes even celestial objects".

"Gravity on the other hand is a force that only adds", eh? Even in this sense "gravity" contradict itself. And so do you believing in this.

The Standard Model (if you mean it in sense of the model that covers the other forces and particles) doesn't include gravity.

There are four known forces. The two nuclear forces are very short range. This leaves electromagnetism and gravity. They are both forces that are proportional to the product of the charges/masses divided by the square of the distance.

Mass is always positive but electric charge can be negative, so gravity is always an attraction but electromagnetism can repel. Atoms and larger objects tend to be electrically neutral because they contain equal positive and negative charges. In contrast, the gravity of every single atom in the Earth (for example) adds together to produce the Earth's gravity.

That's why gravity dominates the solar system.

Using this theory explains the motions of all of the objects in the solar system (some slight deviations are explained by Einstein). Every single space mission has used gravity calculations to get were they were going.

If you're going to claim it's wrong you need to explain the amazing accuracy.

Not only that, ratiocinator. Native needs to back his “alternative explanation” with evidences, which Native haven’t.

And Native, if you are going to respond to this reply. I have already come across your “electromagnetic does everything, not gravity” argument before.

You seriously needs better stance, then this one, Native.

 

[Native]

Not only that, ratiocinator. Native needs to back his “alternative explanation” with evidences, which Native haven’t.

Of course I have to and of course I have and of course I can.

On the other hand, I have just as much circumstantial evidences as used in standing theories. The major problem for me is that some debaters don´t easily grasp written sentenses and the common and overall connections in my explanations. The other major problem is of course my alternative approach which bounds against a huge and thick consensus wall.

And Native, if you are going to respond to this reply. I have already come across your “electromagnetic does everything, not gravity” argument before.

You seriously needs better stance, then this one, Native.

I´ll of course respond to any polite and respectful replies. And to the second sentence: It takes at least TWO persons in order to understand each other - and a LOT of patience and open minded listening.

My stands are just as valid as the inversely proportional unproven and problematic issues in standing theories.

BTW: I know that you and other debaters here claims math and calculations. I just wonder if anyone of you have tried to check my cosmological points of view with math and calculations?

 

[gnostic]

My stands are just as valid as the inversely proportional unproven and problematic issues in standing theories.

BTW: I know that you and other debaters here claims math and calculations. I just wonder if anyone of you have tried to check my cosmological points of view with math and calculations?

That’s where you wrong.

I always have stated that evidences always superseded any maths (equations, formulas, constants, hence proofs). Scientific consensus are only reached by the number of evidences, to showed that theory or hypothesis is probable, not by the mathematical proof.

Don’t get me wrong. Maths are important and useful tools to science, but equations and formulas are only man-made logic that can only represent the real world, but it’s solution is only abstract in nature.

Empirical and testable evidences, on the other hand, will -

1. either refute the hypothesis or theory,
2. or verify & validate the hypothesis or theory.

The number of evidences are what used to determine the accepted or rejected status any hypothesis or theory.

Existing theories can only replaced or modified with stronger evidences that backed alternative hypothesis or theory. You haven’t done that, not by long shot.

All you have presented, is your opinion, like your view that ancient myth of the Milky Way presented true knowledge, eg your pseudoscience and nonexistent “river” of the Milky Way, and that Noah’s Flood took place in the Milky Way, not on Earth, is even more ridiculous and baseless than the literal creationism of Young Earth Creationists.

You have never presented any evidence for that nonsense, just your personal view.

 

[gnostic]

Of course I have to and of course I have and of course I can.

On the other hand, I have just as much circumstantial evidences as used in standing theories. The major problem for me is that some debaters don´t easily grasp written sentenses and the common and overall connections in my explanations. The other major problem is of course my alternative approach which bounds against a huge and thick consensus wall.

Your alternative approach have nothing do with your conspiracy theory regarding to the consensus.

Your alternative approach is nothing more than mumble-jumble view which has no basis in reality, as well as not providing evidences for your absurdity, like you linking Noah’s Flood to the Milky Way.

It is bad enough that I have to read similar junk science from creationists and ID advocates, but yours is like hippies tripping on acids. What you and others have in common, is spreading this conspiracy nonsenses.

 

[Native]

@gnostic

You have never presented any evidence for that nonsense, just your personal view.

I would´ve answered your post if you´ve left out this factual insult.

 

[Native]

@gnostic

Your alternative approach have nothing do with your conspiracy theory regarding to the consensus.

Your alternative approach is nothing more than mumble-jumble view which has no basis in reality, as well as not providing evidences for your absurdity, like you linking Noah’s Flood to the Milky Way.

It is bad enough that I have to read similar junk science from creationists and ID advocates, but yours is like hippies tripping on acids. What you and others have in common, is spreading this conspiracy nonsenses.

This qualified you for the "Ignore" botten.

 

[ecco]

Fine, but when you leave the Earth atmosphere your "G" almost has disappeared, partly because
gravity is the weakest link of all, and partly because it doesn´t do anything, because the "G" on the Earth is confused for the simple atmospheric pressure, which works with the same principle laws as the assumed gravity.

We are getting closer to the truth. Now if we all just admit that the so-called "atmospheric pressure" is really just tiny angels pressing down on us, we'll have finally accepted the reality of the universe. The reason "G" disappears when you leave the earth's atmosphere, is because the teeny angels can't breathe way out there.

 

[ecco]

It is bad enough that I have to read similar junk science from creationists and ID advocates, but yours is like hippies tripping on acids. What you and others have in common, is spreading this conspiracy nonsenses.

Please do not disrespect hippies tripping on acids. Hippies tripping on acids do not condone junk science.

 

[Sapiens]

55 Tonnes Of Cosmic Dust Fall To Earth Every Day

Think again ...

From wiki: Earth's mass is variable, subject to both gain and loss due to the accretion of micrometeorites and cosmic dust and the loss of hydrogen and helium gas, respectively. The combined effect is a net loss of material, estimated at 5.5×107 kg (54,000 tons) per year. This amount is 10−17 of the total earth mass.[30] The 5.5×107 kg annual net loss is essentially due to 100,000 tons lost due to atmospheric escape, and an average of 45,000 tons gained from in-falling dust and meteorites. This is well within the mass uncertainty of 0.01% (6×1020 kg), so the estimated value of Earth's mass is unaffected by this factor.