Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[Revoltingest]

Of course it can, but you have to focus on the philosophical explanation in first hand and its embedded arguments before you can see possible testable conditions.

Tqke for instants my claims of an outgoing formative motion from the Milky Way galaxy. This is confirmed by the galactic rotation curve, and as such it predicts quite another overall motion in the galaxy than both the Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas of "gravity" and "gravitational curvation of space time".

And when claiming all rotational and orbital motions in our Solar System to derive directly from the central rotation in the galactic center, this of course predicts quite another celestial law of motion around a center.

It also predicts the formation of the Solar System itself to be formed via EM forces in the Milky Way center without any gravitational force at hand.

I admit that calculatioins are needed in order to find the scientific evidences as required today - but IMO the explanations and arguments are OK :

It just takes some time to ponder over new ideas and I´m fully aware of this obstacle.

Without making testable predictions about motion, it's not science.

 

[ecco]

It would certainly be an easy, interesting proof of EU to have a program that shows planetary motions. I guess they and you are OK with just making assertions without even basic proofs.

Your approach and assumption of "making assertions without having any proofs", gets you nowhere with me. You should be aware of this by now, shouldn´t you?

I'm aware that you have made assertions and have given no proofs.
I'm aware that I and others have asked for proofs.
I gave an easy example that you could use as proof.

We are all aware that asking for proofs is getting us nowhere.

Conversely,
Simulator online revolution orbits of the planets — Astronoo
is proof that the gravity theory does work.

It's no great surprise that, once again, science triumphs over BS.


As an aside, a little digging accidentally turned up a reference to a musical group Electric Universe. Not nearly as good as (early) Tangerine Dream.

 

[ecco]

Besides everything else, you should be aware that the ThunderboltsProject mostly is interested in their skewed planetary ideas of "some planets once to have been closer located to the Earth, hovering in a line over the Earth´s northern celestial pole". A complete idiotic assumption caused by misconceptions of the ancient Myths of Creation.

My criticue of this stupid idea was the cause that I got "permanently excluded" from the Forum

This stupid idea was started by Immanuel Velikovsky in his book "Worlds in Collision" and taken very seriously by "Comparative Mythologist", David Talbott, owner of the TBP Forum.

The TBP is not basically interested in how the planets moves today.

Edit: BTW, I recommend this site regarding The Electric Universe ideas

I'll repeat from the above...

My criticue of this stupid idea was the cause that I got "permanently excluded" from the Forum

​

Stupid idea? Really? A few days ago it was all high praise when you posted ...(my emphases)

You´ve come to know nothing of this kind at all. After a long time (40 years) studying Comparative Mythology, I stumbled over the mythological issues in the ThunderboltsProject and then I compared the topics of Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe with my mytological perceptions and do you know what?

It all fits very well together when you interpret the ancient myths of creation in the terms of PC and EU.

Now that is has been shown to be more BS, you want to disassociate yourself from them.



I'll repeat from the above...

Edit: BTW, I recommend this site regarding The Electric Universe ideas

​

Another bait and switch. This is the same tactic you used with links to support your "fiery object" mythstuff. You posted one link. I showed there was nothing there. You posted another link. Not much there either.

 

[Native]

Without making testable predictions about motion, it's not science.

For the moment anyone can test it just by reading my explanations and arguments and ask into any issues of these explanations. I´m in fact using known cosmological observations and knowledge so it shouldn´t be that difficult.

 

[Native]

NOTE: I´ve put "ecco" on the forgotten button. I no more want to be pushed around by his lack of concentration and afterwards accusing me for his own confusions.

 

[ecco]

NOTE: I´ve put "ecco" on the forgotten button. I no more want to be pushed around by his lack of concentration and afterwards accusing me for his confusions.

Whatever a "forgotten list" may be.

The bottom line is that you have produced no evidence for your beliefs. I'm not the only one who has pointed this out.

For the moment anyone can test it just by reading my explanations and arguments and ask into any issues of these explanations.

Again. You assert we can test your theories by "reading (your) explanations and arguments". It's pretty hard to test something as vague as:

Take for instants my claims of an outgoing formative motion from the Milky Way galaxy. This is confirmed by the galactic rotation curve, and as such it predicts quite another overall motion in the galaxy than both the Newtonian and Einsteinian ideas of "gravity" and "gravitational curvation of space time".
​

You assert that something predicts something else better than gravity. However, that is nothing more than, as you yourself state, a claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Read my #12 post above. It´s the genuine essence of tens of thousands of years of common global physical and spiritual human observations and spiritual inspirations.

Or...
It's the genuine bulk of type 1 cognition errors infused with agency, that just demonstrates that humans are very prone to such type 1 cognition errors - aka superstition. Just like all other animals that evolved as prey.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When it comes to cosmological understanding, modern scientists are just interpretating the observations

"just"

"Just" interpretating the observations, is also what your glorious ancients would have been stuck with. That's literally what you do. You observe stuff and then try to explain what you observe.

The difference between ancients and modern scientists, is that what the ancients didn't know what they were looking at. So they created superstitious stories about it.

You see, ancient man was quite superstitious. In fact, ancient man didn't know better.
Agency and intent was infused in pretty much everything they didn't understand.

This is why any half mentionworthy thing or phenomenon on humans in reality, has a god or comparable entity somewhere at some time in some culture, controlling it.

and as long as there is NO universal consensus of cosmos, mine and yours guesses are just as good.

Science doesn't guess.

 

[joelr]

Of course the physisists can be in doubts. They don´t even have a clue of what ligth is in this case of doubt, confusing ligth to be particles instead of waves.

Ha, you don't even understand wave/particle duality?

 

[joelr]

It doesn´t matter what they say. Both claims are pure specualtions prodused to fit a theory which isn´t fully understood or certainly not proven by natural means or logics.

Except GR isn't pure speculation because all the math works out and it isn't "not proven by logics" because again all the math works out exactly right when triangulating several GPs and taking into account both SR and GR.
It's very accurate logical and proven.
Interesting how you pretend like that's not true by just sweeping it under a rug.
It's interesting to see where the cognitive bias creeps in.

Mostly everything is debunked here:
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Relativity Denial: The GPS 4-Satellite Solution

The minimum number of satellites needed for a position determination is three (assuming your receiver has a reasonably accurate clock), so you can determine the receiver's three position components, x,y,z in cartesian ECEF coordinates (Wikipedia).

If you have a fourth GPS satellite, then the mathematics demonstrates that the position computation can be done without the signal time from the receiver.

Misconception: If four GPS satellites are available, so that you don't need to know the time at the receiver, then relativistic corrections are not necessary. This is evidence that relativitistic corrections are not really needed in the GPS system.

Why it is wrong: The relativistic corrections, as well as several other important corrections to the range computation, depend on the positions of the satellite(s) and the receiver. These correction terms are in the fundamental range computation equation. While you can use a fourth equation to eliminate the receiver time with an expression using the transmission time on the fourth satellite, the relativistic correction terms do not disappear, nor do they conveniently cancel.

Relativistic corrections remain important for accurate GPS position determination.

The Mathematical Details

The GPS Solution for Three Satellites

Using the time of the signal departing the satellite, t_s, and the time when the signal is received, t_r, we define what is called the pseudo-range, R, between the receiver, r, and the satellite, s

equations here:
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Relativity Denial: The GPS 4-Satellite Solution

Of course you do. Everything which is ouside your own squared box is crank, right? Well, it takes one to know one

"I know you are what am I " is your response? Heh.
What I'm saying is every time I take an EU theory and put it to a test it fails. But when I report that more rug sweeping happens. You can actually take any EU concept and understand why it isn't true but you have to actually want to understand things.

I'm saying I went out of the box and tried to prove or debunk concepts in EU. To you that's a problem because I didn't find what results you want so you put it in a negative light. So far it's all crank.

But I understand more now why people are drawn to it.
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: PseudoScience & the Ego-Centric Universe

To me it´s hilarious that modern cosmological scientists have the need to explain ordinary light refraction phenomena as a very special gravity effect. Get real in the real natural world, please.

provide sources of light refraction accounting for all types of lensing including multiple image microlensing. GR accounts for it perfectly.

Without being an expert, I´ll just say you´re confusing "time" with different stages of a particle.

Except it isn't "me" confusing the dillation it's EXPERTS!? Did you look at the article?
So a non-expert is telling the experts what's actually happening.
Speaking of hilarious.

All your references to the "Mercury problem" STILL doesn´t explain the causes of the planetary motions at all.

Energy transfer in GR and gravity equations and such is well known.
Not well known by laymen but yes they do understand why mass moves in curved space-time.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Read my #12 post above. It´s the genuine essence of tens of thousands of years of common global physical and spiritual human observations and spiritual inspirations.

Or...
It's the genuine bulk of type 1 cognition errors infused with agency, that just demonstrates that humans are very prone to such type 1 cognition errors - aka superstition. Just like all other animals that evolved as prey.

So: Let us all know how long you have studied Ancient Mythology, please.

 

[Native]

The difference between ancients and modern scientists, is that what the ancients didn't know what they were looking at. So they created superstitious stories about it.

At least our ancestors didn´t invented all kind of metaphysical "dark matters and energies" and black monsters in galaxies

 

[Native]

Ha, you don't even understand wave/particle duality?

No I don´t because there is no duality to understand Atomic particles have charges which creates electromagnetic light. Period. The rest is just speculations.

Except GR isn't pure speculation because all the math works out and it isn't "not proven by logics" because again all the math works out exactly right when triangulating several GPs and taking into account both SR and GR.
It's very accurate logical and proven.

Don´t you read the thread before you comment on something? I have no options against any calculations. I´m just criticising the ideology which lays behind these calculations.

I'm saying I went out of the box and tried to prove or debunk concepts in EU. To you that's a problem because I didn't find what results you want so you put it in a negative light. So far it's all crank.

Fine, so now you are aware of the Plasma Cosmology and it´s importance in the Electric Universe Theories, as well?

Mostly everything is debunked here:
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Relativity Denial: The GPS 4-Satellite Solution

I don´t know why you´re posting this Strawman. I´m not a creationist.

 

[Native]

Why it is wrong: The relativistic corrections, as well as several other important corrections to the range computation, depend on the positions of the satellite(s) and the receiver. These correction terms are in the fundamental range computation equation. While you can use a fourth equation to eliminate the receiver time with an expression using the transmission time on the fourth satellite, the relativistic correction terms do not disappear, nor do they conveniently cancel.

Relativistic corrections remain important for accurate GPS position determination.

Isn´t the need for "relativistic corrections" just another expression for not knowing why the damn thing don´t hold their positions?

 

[ratiocinator]

The rest is just speculations.

This is simply untrue. If a theory matches reality, in other words, makes exact, numerical predictions about observations and experiments, then it is not speculation.

What you are doing is (at best) speculation, because you can't make any exact, numerical predictions about observations and experiments and you can't even explain the success of the theories you dismiss as speculation.

 

[ratiocinator]

Isn´t the need for "relativistic corrections" just another expression for not not knowing why the damn thing don´t hold their positions?

No - GR predicted exactly what corrections would be needed.

 

[Native]

What you are doing is (at best) speculation, because you can't make any exact, numerical predictions about observations and experiments and you can't even explain the success of the theories you dismiss as speculation.

Obviously you have no idea of what I am doing. I just take the atomic electromagnetic qualities seriously and make the logical conclusion of how atoms creates light by discharges.

The particle-light stuff duality is just a bad speculative leftover idea of a particle cosmology which should have been abandoned long time ago.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So: Let us all know how long you have studied Ancient Mythology, please.

Long enough to recognise it as the superstition that it obviously is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

At least our ancestors didn´t invented all kind of metaphysical "dark matters and energies" and black monsters in galaxies

There's nothing metaphysical about theoretical models describing very real, very observable, very measureable phenomena.

 

[ratiocinator]

Obviously you have no idea of what I am doing. I just take the atomic electromagnetic qualities seriously and make the logical conclusion of how atoms creates light by discharges.

Atoms don't create light by discharges. We can explain the spectra of light associated with different atoms and the structure of the stricture of the atoms themselves using QM, including the wave-like nature of electrons and the particle-like properties of light.

Again - this works. QM is used to design semiconductors which are the whole basis of the technology that you are using to try to deny it! There are even devices that rely on quantum phenomena that are classically impossible, like tunnel diodes.

The particle-light stuff duality is just a bad speculative leftover idea of a particle cosmology which should have been abandoned long time ago.

It has little to do with cosmology. It's not only science, it's engineering.