Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[cladking]

Anyone who considers Newton a magician or merely an "alchemist should read pgs 31 to 35;

https://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/_downlo...etaphysical_Foundations_of_Modern_Science.pdf

Newton changed not only math and science but the way people think. We can hardly see newtonian metaphysics because it's part and parcel of the way we think.

We don't see that Newton's vision was primitive and that there's no reason to believe in "laws of physics" handed down by some Creator or an equivalency with mathematics. We can't even see the nature of mathematics as quantified logic because of Newton. We tend to see epistemology and metaphysics in light of Newton's beliefs.

 

[cladking]

Nature and nature's laws hid in the night
God said, "Let Newton be." and there was light.

-A contemporary proposed epitaph for Isaac Newton

Newton invented the laws of physics but no such thing exists. It is a religious concept.

 

[joelr]

The physicist disguss OTHER possibilities of the formation of the Solar System instead of the Standard Model gravitational assumptions.

But of course you don´t like ANY other models but the consensus ones which even can´t explain "gravity" or the attached "dark ghosts" which follows the gravitational asumptions.

So just just keep on believing what you once have been teached without having critical questions or alternative suggestions.

First of all you are also just parroting what you have been "taught" from whatever EU propaganda you read and you also have no critical or alternative questions. Except in your case all science is against you and that doesn't even raise any questions?

But, once again, your video features a physicist who BELIEVES IN GRAVITY!!!!????

"The observed movements in the Universe cannot be created with only the gravitational force: there should necessarily be a force acting orthogonal to it." Eugene Bagashov

He also believes in the strong force because it's his specialty!? "His research is in theoretical physics: namely, particle physics and quantum field theory. More specifically, quantum chromodynamics (QCD)."

So that's yet another fail to argue EU.

Also there ARE NO MODELS that don't follow gravity. NONE. The simplest version would have to mathematically account for everything gravity does. There is no such thing. EU is just an idea. Like warp-drive or a Death Star or a light saber.

 

[joelr]

Subject: False cosmic distance measuring contradicts a Big Bang and "dark energy".

Listen to this video and think for yourself:

Wal Thornhill: Big Bang Busted Again

Regarding the ancient cultural Stories of Creation mentioned in the beginning of this video, several of these stories claims the creation to be of an eternal and cyclic nature, thus also contradicting a Big Bang.

My comment to the video:
Timestamp 4:15 regarding the cultural Stories of Creation:
Most of the ancient cultural Stories of Creation claims the creation to be of an eternal and cyclic nature, which of course (also) discards a Big Bang idea.
The specific creation myths mostly describes the pre-conditions of and the factual creation of the Milky Way galaxy which constitutes the ancient known part of the (local) Universe.

So because some ancient stories of creation are cyclic in nature you can't have a big bang? First, the are ancient myths and have no scientific cred. But even if true the universe contracting and expanding in a bang fits perfectly with that idea?

This idea is also cherry picking myths. Spend time reading different cultures actual myths:
List of creation myths - Wikipedia
many are creation from chaos, emergence, out of nothing, so these cultures got it wrong but the ones you like got it right?
Absurd.

His issue with expanding space is weird, bringing geometry and ad-hoc rules that apply in the realm of geometrical objects doesn't apply to a universe? The big bang model is well supported, he doesn't even touch on the wild success stories we have seen with predictions working out that were made about the big bang. The cosmic background radiation for one.

You should at least read the observational evidence

• 5 Observational evidence
  • 5.1 Hubble's law and the expansion of space
  • 5.2 Cosmic microwave background radiation
  • 5.3 Abundance of primordial elements
  • 5.4 Galactic evolution and distribution
  • 5.5 Primordial gas clouds
  • 5.6 Other lines of evidence
  • 5.7 Future observations
  then read the "problems and issues related to physics" and compare it to EU and what they are saying.
• Big Bang - Wikipedia

I try to debunk all theories, big bang, EU...big bang is well supported but EU is just an idea that requires one to drop gravity and seemingly even fundamental forces, change EM, it's a disaster?

 

[Native]

We don't see that Newton's vision was primitive and that there's no reason to believe in "laws of physics" handed down by some Creator or an equivalency with mathematics. We can't even see the nature of mathematics as quantified logic because of Newton. We tend to see epistemology and metaphysics in light of Newton's beliefs.

I agree. Newton jumped into premature conclusions with his gravity ideas - even without thinking of how his apple was made up in the tree in the first place before it fell down.

This over tree hundred years collective gravity hypnosis have now haunted the scientific society and lead the cosmological "thinking" far astray in space.

 

[Native]

First of all you are also just parroting what you have been "taught" from whatever EU propaganda you read and you also have no critical or alternative questions.

I´m not just parrotting the EU model in the ThunderboltProject regie and I HAVE criticized their ideas of "electric capturing of the planets", but of course you ignore this since you´re not able to take it in because of your general EU bias.

But, once again, your video features a physicist who BELIEVES IN GRAVITY!!!!????

Why on Earth would Physicist Eugene Bagashov in the actual video discuss alternative ideas of formation of the Solar System if he firmly and only believes in the gravity model?

"The observed movements in the Universe cannot be created with only the gravitational force: there should necessarily be a force acting orthogonal to it." Eugene Bagashov

You see? He´s looking for other explanations than the gravity one because he DON`T believe in it.

He also believes in the strong force because it's his specialty!? "His research is in theoretical physics: namely, particle physics and quantum field theory. More specifically, quantum chromodynamics (QCD)."

So that's yet another fail to argue EU.

Is it really? You forget to connect the 3 real fundamental forces to electromagnetism which works in all atoms with different charges and frequencies.

Also there ARE NO MODELS that don't follow gravity. NONE.

This just shows how the collective Newtonian gravity hypnosis have captured the scientific minds for several hundreds of years even as the discoveries of the real fundamental electromagnetic forces have been at the stage for many decades.
In fact, the ONLY model which uncritically follows gravity is the Standard Model - and this model only "works" via the human assertions of "dark matter and energy" which isn´t found and never will be found because these "cosmological matters" derives from the lack of cosmological understanding of the EM forces and qualities.

 

[Native]

So because some ancient stories of creation are cyclic in nature you can't have a big bang?

Yes you could, but logically it isn´t necessary if the creation is cyclical in nature.

First, the are ancient myths and have no scientific cred.

Remember? I don´t take you as an expert on ancient myths of creation.

But even if true the universe contracting and expanding in a bang fits perfectly with that idea

The contracting and expanding idea in cosmos is correct even in the ancient perception, but it all happens in a constant change of matters and motions and NOT "in bangs".

This idea is also cherry picking myths. Spend time reading different cultures actual myths:
List of creation myths - Wikipedia many are creation from chaos, emergence, out of nothing, so these cultures got it wrong but the ones you like got it right?
Absurd.

I find it very amusing that you link me to "Lists of creation myths" This linking is just what I myself do frequently. I admit that many of the cultural creation myths have been defregmented - but this even goes for the biblical creation myth. If you, for instants, take the Egyptian and Norse creation myths, there is NO beginning and no end.

Besides this, you have to remember that the ancient myths of creation don´t speak of a creation of the entire Universe, but "only" of a creation of the ancient known part of the local Universe, the Milky Way (You would have been aware of this if you were an expert on ancient myths)

When some myths speaks of "a beginning" they describes the "chaotic" pre-conditions from where the creation of the Milky Way origin. Read for instants of the formation principles in the Norse Creation Myth.

You should at least read the observational evidence

• 5 Observational evidence
  • 5.1 Hubble's law and the expansion of space
  • 5.2 Cosmic microwave background radiation
  • 5.3 Abundance of primordial elements
  • 5.4 Galactic evolution and distribution
  • 5.5 Primordial gas clouds
  • 5.6 Other lines of evidence
  • 5.7 Future observations
  then read the "problems and issues related to physics" and compare it to EU and what they are saying. Big Bang - Wikipedia

You (and LOTS of scientists) generally confuse assumptions and conventional standards in the Standard Model as "evidences" just because "it fits" to earlier assumptions based on matter which haven´t been found at all or on distance measurements which is based on false and insufficient methods as for instants THIS ONE.

I try to debunk all theories, big bang, EU...

What? Where in this discussion have you seriously tried to "debunk all (standard) theories"? In my opinion you just blindly and uncritically follows what is told you or what you can read of consensus ideas. Don´t you have a personal opinion at all of anything?

EU...big bang is well supported but EU is just an idea that requires one to drop gravity and seemingly even fundamental forces, change EM, it's a disaster?

The real disaster is that cosmological scientists (and laymen) mentally and intellectually can´t oversee the possibility that there is just ONE FORCE which governs all atoms - and then I don´t care what you think of any EU ideas at all.