Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[Native]

Yes, I understand that this is your claim. My position is that you are wrong in this: the ancients had a vastly *inferior* notion of the cosmos than we do.

How can you tell? You are obviously NOT an expert in Ancient Mythology and therefore completely untrustworthy as a witness in such matters.

Modern cosmological science has lots of cosmic images, calculations and measurements, but they have no OVERALL concensus ideas of how to interpret these and how humans participates in this.

When you study Comparative Mythology and Religion from all cultures, there is an amazing likeness in all Stories of Creation of which the most specific speaks of the very principles of creation as well of the cyclical and eternal processes of formation.

There is much more natural logics in these ancient tellings than the actual modern and highly speculative approach ever will be able to gain.

 

[Polymath257]

How can you tell? You are obviously NOT an expert in Ancient Mythology and therefore completely untrustworthy as a witness in such matters.

Modern cosmological science has lots of cosmic images, calculations and measurements, but they have no OVERALL concensus ideas of how to interpret these and how humans participates in this.

When you study Comparative Mythology and Religion from all cultures, there is an amazing likeness in all Stories of Creation of which the most specific speaks of the very principles of creation as well of the cyclical and eternal processes of formation.

There is much more natural logics in these ancient tellings than the actual modern and highly speculative approach ever will be able to gain.

Well, I disagree. Mysticism is mostly bunk. The ancients had less information than we have today. They were highly intelligent, but because of that information lack, they reached invalid conclusions.

Modern science is a LOT less speculative than what people did before the rise of science. Mysticism is one aspect of that earlier speculation.

And you are wrong. Consensus doesn't require 100%, and modern astrophysics has close to that level of consensus about the Big Bang and expanding universe model. I'm curious what aspects you think are NOT part of a consensus, especially as regards to our conversation here. At the very least, there is definitely a consensus that E&M effects are NOT what is going on with planetary orbits or the motion of the stars inside of galaxies.

You seem to be unaware of what aspects of the Milky Way are easily visible by going outside on a clear, dark, night and which aspects require much more sophisticated technology to unveil.

 

[Native]

Well, I disagree. Mysticism is mostly bunk. The ancients had less information than we have today. They were highly intelligent, but because of that information lack, they reached invalid conclusions.

You cannot even differ between "Mythology" and "Mysticism" which just confirms my statement above:

You are obviously NOT an expert in Ancient Mythology and therefore completely untrustworthy as a witness in such matters.

 

[Polymath257]

You cannot even differ between "Mythology" and "Mysticism" which just confirms my statement above:

Well, what I said is also true of Mythology. You are correct, they are different approaches, both wrong as far as I am concerned.

But your description of how the ancients acquired their 'knowledge' amounts to mysticism. The mythology came out of their conclusions.

 

[Native]

Well, what I said is also true of Mythology. You are correct, they are different approaches, both wrong as far as I am concerned.

But your description of how the ancients acquired their 'knowledge' amounts to mysticism. The mythology came out of their conclusions.

How can you tell? You are obviously NOT an expert in Ancient Mythology and therefore completely untrustworthy as a witness in such matters.

PERIOD!

 

[ecco]

Why would I "read here"? You previously posted a link (Egyptian creation myths) to "a fiery light". I followed that link. I read through the article. I searched the article for "light". I found nothing about a "fiery light".

Now you post another link and expect me to follow it too! It's not baseball. You don't get three strikes. It's more along the lines of "fool me once"...

Maybe, in the future, you should take the time to look at the articles you link to to ensure they actually contain the information you allege they do.





ETA: After I posted the above, I decided to look at your "read here" link after all. Guess what, no fiery light. It's clear that you make up stories, post links to lend credence to them and hope no one takes the time to actually look.

Of course, you run the danger that, occasionally, someone will check your links and expose you.

Of course if you don´t follow and read the links thoroughly, you run the danger that somebody may think you willfully WILL not know.

Quote from the last link above:
"Together the four concepts represent the primal fundamental state of the beginning, they are what always was. In the myth, however, their interaction ultimately proved to be unbalanced, resulting in the arising of a new entity. When the entity opened, it revealed Ra, the fiery sun, inside. After a long interval of rest, Ra, together with the other gods, created all other things. There are two main variations on the nature of the entity containing Ra".

Whether one interpret this to be "THE SUN" or to be the central light in the Milky Way, we are of course talking of electromagnetic light as claimed above.

Be more serious when you reply, please.

Not only serious, bur careful and thorough. But that doesn't mean I should shoulder the burden to "read the links thoroughly". It's your job to make your argument.


You have been referring to a "fiery light". If you wanted me to look for a "fiery sun", then you should have said so. Furthermore, your first link had nothing "fiery".

Also, instead of posting a link and expecting other people to look through the article, why not just excerpt the relevant information in the first place.


Finally, neither of your linked articles says anything about "electromagnetic light ". So, again, your allegations have no backing whatsoever from any source.

 

[Native]

Not only serious, bur careful and thorough. But that doesn't mean I should shoulder the burden to "read the links thoroughly". It's your job to make your argument.

How can I make the arguments if you don´t read the arguments???

Finally, neither of your linked articles says anything about "electromagnetic light ". So, again, your allegations have no backing whatsoever from any source.

Oh, I just thought you knew that light IS electromagnetic. But maybe the Sun or other fiery and shining sources is lit by gravity in your mind?

 

[joelr]

The concept of "space time" is just a human invention and nothing more. Motions in space are not time-dependent and the curvative motion in space are governed by the force of electromagnetism and NOT by "gravity"

Regarding the "gravitational lensing" this is just a normal light refraction of light in dust and gas - or at the level of seeing a distant oasis in the desert, a fata morgana.

Newtons gravity wasn't just about planets. Newton wanted to understand what force was keeping us on Earth.
He noticed that this same phenomenon was also happening with planets in space as well as the moons and with the sun.

General relativity did reproduce the Newtonian gravitational equations and it did predict gravitational lensing. But it also accounted for the perihelion of Mercury's orbit that Newtonian equations could not account for.
It also predicts black holes and the expansion of the universe as well as gravity waves which we have now seen several times.

Motion is space is time dependent. There is a constant speed objects move in space-time. Massless particles that move at the fastest possible speed in space move zero in the time dimension.
As objects begin to move through space-time their time movement slows down.
Objects in space-time with no speed will experience the fastest movement through the time dimension.

When Einstein presented special relativity to his instructor Hermann Minowski, Minowski immediately figured this relationship out. This is not new information but was confirmed in 1906. It's just not popular in poop-science explanations of relativity.

 

[Native]

Newtons gravity wasn't just about planets. Newton wanted to understand what force was keeping us on Earth.
He noticed that this same phenomenon was also happening with planets in space as well as the moons and with the sun.

How could he possibly make this comparison and conclusion? I think it was pure guessworks and nothing else. Well outside the Earth atmosphere there is nothing to hold you on the Earth, just think of that.

The knowledge of the orbiting planets around the Sun was empirical knowledge long before Newton was a glimse in his parents eyes. Newton just put mathematical equations on the motions and assumed the Sun to hold the planets in their orbits.

This celestial assumption of "a central force which holds the celestial objects in orbits" was contradicted by the starry motions in our galaxy where all objects orbits the galactic center with the same velocity, which stunned the scientists who belived that such velocity would sling the stars away from the galaxy - and then they invented "dark matter" to hold the stars inside the galaxy. The observed motion "was wrong" and then they patched their celestial "laws" with "dark matter" in order to save the hypothesis instead of revising their laws.

And now scientists are looking for "dark matter" which only can be found as a thought pattern inside the head of the scientists.

And skewed thougth patterns also consitutes much of the rest of your reply. "Gravity" are getting the better of you in most of the mentioned issues.

Motion is space is time dependent. There is a constant speed objects move in space-time. Massless particles that move at the fastest possible speed in space move zero in the time dimension.
As objects begin to move through space-time their time movement slows down.
Objects in space-time with no speed will experience the fastest movement through the time dimension.

This is cosmological gibberish. Have you analyzed the logics in these sentenses before you wrote this? Or are you just refferring from a textbook?

 

[ratiocinator]

The knowledge of the orbiting planets around the Sun was empirical knowledge long before Newton was a glimse in his parents eyes. Newton just put mathematical equations on the motions and assumed the Sun to hold the planets in their orbits.

Well yes, sort of. In modern terms he hypothesised it. This is actually how science works. He found that if he assumed gravity, it correctly retrodicted the motions of the planets and, together with his other laws, also explained many other phenomena.

The model stood for hundreds of years because it worked and it still works for situations where relativistic effects are not significant. It works for predicting the motions of asteroids and comets and it works so well we can land a probe on a comet using it.

If we try to use something else, like electromagnetism, to do the calculations, it doesn't work.

That is actually all that that is required for a good scientific theory; that it makes correct predictions of experiments and observation. There is no other test in science. Philosophically, it is possible to view science as being nothing but "capturing the observations". That is, if you have a framework that successfully retrodicts all the observations to date, and has proved useful in predicting new ones so far, that is all science is for.

Of course anybody claiming the science isn't telling us something about how the universe works has their work cut out to explain the success of the established theories.

As I tried to explain before, this is what you need to do if you want to claim Newton and Einstein were wrong. Strictly, of course, Einstein did show that Newton was wrong but also explained the success of Newtonian gravity using his new theory.

This is cosmological gibberish. Have you analyzed the logics in these sentenses before you wrote this? Or are you just refferring from a textbook?

@joelr is correct. The logic is both sound and well tested in experiments and observations.

 

[Native]

Well yes, sort of. In modern terms he hypothesised it. This is actually how science works. He found that if he assumed gravity, it correctly retrodicted the motions of the planets and, together with his other laws, also explained many other phenomena.

You don´t have to hypothesise "gravity" in order to measure the motions of planets. These motions were already known. "Celestial gravity" was just a result of Newtons speculative "apple pie".

Besides this, the distances between the Sun and the planets are annually increading and the same goes for the distance between the Earth and the Moon, so there is NO constants working in these matters.

Of course "a mathematical model will work for a long time as the calculations were fit to the motion of planets", but this don´t explain WHAT is working - or not. And it didn´t work in the galactic realms either.

If we try to use something else, like electromagnetism, to do the calculations, it doesn't work.

It certainly depends on inserting the EM into the correct formative conditions and then it will fit very nicely to everything in cosmos. And it even will explain the scientific selfmade problem of "missing mass".

That is actually all that that is required for a good scientific theory; that it makes correct predictions of experiments and observation. There is no other test in science.

I´m afraid much of the "correct predictions" just fits the hypothesised laws and not the real things in cosmos.

@joelr is correct. The logic is both sound and well tested in experiments and observations.

Massless particles that move at the fastest possible speed in space move zero in the time dimension.

This is nonsense. According to the theory, time and space is connected. But in the case of a "massless particle" wich moves very fast, time suddenly has dissappeared out of the equation!?

And a "massless particle"? What on Earth is this? Excuse me for laughing out loud

Of course anybody claiming the science isn't telling us something about how the universe works has their work cut out to explain the success of the established theories.

Have you ever studied the topic of unsolved cosmological problems? I think cosmological scientists have their problems explaining their own "successes".

 

[ratiocinator]

You don´t have to hypothesise "gravity" in order to measure the motions of planets. These motions were already known. "Celestial gravity" was just a result of Newtons speculative "apple pie".

You can measure things without a hypothesis but if you have a hypothesis that explains the measurements (and lots of other phenomena) and makes accurate predictions, you have a good scientific theory - by definition; that is what a "good scientific theory" means.

Of course "a mathematical model will work for a long time as the calculations were fit to the motion of planets", but this don´t explain WHAT is working - or not. And it didn´t work in the galactic realms either.

The point is that making certain assumptions (constructing a hypothesis) proved to be very, very accurate, and therefore became an accepted theory. If you don't think the theory is correct, you need to explain its success (as Einstein did).

It certainly depends on inserting the EM into the correct formative conditions and then it will fit very nicely to everything in cosmos. And it even will explain the scientific selfmade problem of "missing mass".

We also have a very well tested theory electromagnetism, and it doesn't work for predicting planetary motion. You seem to want to throw out a tested theory that works and then take another tested theory, throw that out as well, because it doesn't work in the situation you'd like it to work for, and then... well, I've got no idea... make up something entirely new and totally untested but call it the same thing as one of the tested theories you threw out (electromagnetism).

Why?

I´m afraid much of the "correct predictions" just fits the hypothesised laws and not the real things in cosmos.

No - as I said, the theories are incredibly accurate in the real world. Trying to deny that is denying reality.

This is nonsense. According to the theory, time and space is connected. But in the case of a "massless particle" wich moves very fast, time suddenly has dissappeared out of the equation!?

No, the invariant interval or proper time (the space-time equivalent of distance) of a null path (that is something travelling at the speed of light) is zero.

Again, this is a very well tested theory - it works, it matches reality.

And a "massless particle"? What on Earth is this? Excuse me for laughing out loud

Again, you're laughing at something that is well tested and matches reality to an extraordinary degree. Quantum electrodynamics is one of the best tested theories in the history of science.

If you can't explain why it matches reality so closely, you really have nothing to offer, and certainly nothing to laugh about.

Have you ever studied the topic of cosmological problems? I think cosmological scientists have their problems explaining their own "successes".

It isn't news to anybody that there are things we don't know yet. That does not detract from the extraordinary success of the theories we do have. The success you really need to explain if you think they are fundamentally wrong....

 

[Native]

You can measure things without a hypothesis but if you have a hypothesis that explains the measurements (and lots of other phenomena) and makes accurate predictions, you have a good scientific theory - by definition; that is what a "good scientific theory" means.

Yes fine. But you cannot explain anything at all as long as you have no idea of what "gravity" is.

We also have a very well tested theory electromagnetism, and it doesn't work for predicting planetary motion. You seem to want to throw out a tested theory that works and then take another tested theory, throw that out as well, because it doesn't work in the situation you'd like it to work for, and then... well, I've got no idea... make up something entirely new and totally untested but call it the same thing as one of the tested theories you threw out (electromagnetism).

Why?

You haven´t tested the EM force working in plasmatic elements, have you? And you certainly not have tested the EM in galactic realms, have you?

The point is that the EM really governs all formations in the Universe and that EM initially created the Milky Way and the Solar System and provided rotations and orbital motions to everything in our galaxy, including the Solar System.

Besides this, if counting on the much stronger EM force compared to the weakest force of all, "the gravity", you have NO MISSING mass in the Universe at all. And as a bonus, you´ll get the natural explanations of all motions in the Universe.

It isn't news to anybody that there are things we don't know yet. That does not detract from the extraordinary success of the theories we do have. The success you really need to explain if you think they are fundamentally wrong....

As long as cosmological scientists needs to invent "dark this and that" in order to understand the natural motions in cosmos, they really are fundamentally wrong indeed.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes fine. But you cannot explain anything at all as long as you have no idea of what "gravity" is.

We do have an idea what gravity is. In Newtonian terms it was a force that acts between masses. In general relativity, it's a curvature of space-time.

You haven´t tested the EM force working in plasmatic elements, have you? And you certainly not have tested the EM in galactic realms, have you?

We know EM can't be the force that dominates the solar system. There are no significant net charges on the relevant bodies. On a wider scale people have tried all sort of "electric universe" conjectures but none of them actually work.

As long as cosmological scientists needs to invent "dark this and that" in order to understand the natural motions in cosmos, they really are fundamentally wrong indeed.

How do you know? How do you explain the extraordinary success apart from dark matter/energy? Why is it so unbelievable that there is matter we can't see? Dark energy could easily be a non-zero cosmological constant in general relativity.

It's not impossible that a new insight will change the picture but it will still have to do, as Einstein did with Newton, explain the extraordinary success of the current picture.

 

[Native]

We do have an idea what gravity is. In Newtonian terms it was a force that acts between masses. In general relativity, it's a curvature of space-time.

Oh yes, this speculative "spooky action at distances" Well show me this force then.

We know EM can't be the force that dominates the solar system. There are no significant net charges on the relevant bodies. On a wider scale people have tried all sort of "electric universe" conjectures but none of them actually work.

No they of course don´t work according to the strange idea of gravitation and it´s matemathical calculations, Because it´s quite another force which works both as an attraction and repulsion.

How do you know? How do you explain the extraordinary success apart from dark matter/energy?

What cosmological success are you talking about? And "dark matter/energy/heavy black holes" are all over the places in modern cosmology, leving nothing left which can be defined as a natural cosmology.

It's not impossible that a new insight will change the picture but it will still have to do, as Einstein did with Newton, explain the extraordinary success of the current picture.

Modern cosmology have done just that for a century and it never will come up with anything new before they discard the strange and spoky "gravity" models.

Just think of it: Modern cosmology has the weakest of all forces to govern the entire Universe!? This is nonsense.

 

[ratiocinator]

Oh yes, this speculative "spooky action at distances" Well show me this force then.

How can I show you a force? It has been directly (and indirectly) measured countless times. There is no 'spooky' action at a distance in relativity - that is an artefact of the Newtonian approximation.

It is the antithesis of speculative. It is an extremely well tested theory. Once again: calculations based on it are good enough to land a probe on a comet. You have still not even attempted to explain this accuracy if it's totally wrong.

No they of course don´t work according to the strange idea of gravitation and it´s matemathical calculations, Because it´s quite another force which works both as an attraction and repulsion.

This doesn't make sense as an answer to my comment. If you use the (well tested) EM theory to account for the large scale universe (and neglect gravity), it doesn't work.

What cosmological success are you talking about? And "dark matter/energy/heavy black holes" are all over the places in modern cosmology, leving nothing left which can be defined as a natural cosmology.

I'm talking about its complete success throughout the solar system and its success cosmologically if we include dark matter and energy. There is very good evidence for black holes.

Modern cosmology have done just that for a century and it never will come up with anything new before they discard the strange and spoky "gravity" models.

This seems to be a baseless assertion. And you still haven't even attempted to explain why it works.

General relativity is used in the GPS system to compensate for both gravitational (curved space-time) and relative motion time dilation (source). Why do you think the calculations based on a totally wrong theory work so accurately? Coincidence? Blind luck?

Just think of it: Modern cosmology has the weakest of all forces to govern the entire Universe!? This is nonsense.

Do I really need to explain this? There are four known forces. The two nuclear forces are short range. That leaves EM and gravity. Gravity is always attractive; add more mass and you get more attraction. EM can be repulsive and if you have equal positive and negative charges (which tends to be the case for atoms, planets, stars, etc.), there is no net force.

 

[Native]

It is the antithesis of speculative. It is an extremely well tested theory. Once again: calculations based on it are good enough to land a probe on a comet. You have still not even attempted to explain this accuracy if it's totally wrong.

I don´t question the calculations but these can be done without mixing "gravity" into these geometric calculations, combined with the measuring of the escape velocity.

This doesn't make sense as an answer to my comment. If you use the (well tested) EM theory to account for the large scale universe (and neglect gravity), it doesn't work.

Feel fre to elaborate on these tests, please.

Do I really need to explain this? There are four known forces. The two nuclear forces are short range. That leaves EM and gravity. Gravity is always attractive; add more mass and you get more attraction. EM can be repulsive and if you have equal positive and negative charges (which tends to be the case for atoms, planets, stars, etc.), there is no net force.

You didn´t need to explain the forces. But you certainly need to explain that the weakest of these forces are thought to govern the entire Universal circus.

 

[ratiocinator]

I don´t question the calculations but these can be done without mixing "gravity" into these geometric calculations, combined with the measuring of the escape velocity.

The calculations are entirely about gravity. That's the only force that's at all significant in navigating a spacecraft round the solar system. All the calculations are done on the basis of gravity.

I have no idea what you think escape velocity has to do with it. Most of a journey to another planet or comet or whatever, happens after the powered launch and is achieved by the influence of gravity alone (largely the Sun's). You calculate exactly what direction and speed will put it on an intercepting orbit to your target. All done by assuming gravity.

So, assuming gravity, we correctly and accurately predict the orbits of planets, asteroids, and comets and we can calculate trajectories well enough to intercept them. Assuming general relativity makes the GPS system accurate.

I'm still not seeing the first hint of an explanation for these facts, if gravity isn't real...

 

[Native]

I'm still not seeing the first hint of an explanation for these facts, if gravity isn't real...

I provided the first hint by mentioning the atmospheric pressure but you ignored this hint. I think Newton confused atmospheric pressure to be a "gravitational force" which he then induced on the planetary motions as well.

 

[ratiocinator]

I provided the first hint by mentioning the atmospheric pressure but you ignored this hint. I think Newton confused atmospheric pressure to be a "gravitational force" which he then induced on the planetary motions as well.

Well, quite apart from having no explanation for atmospheric pressure without gravity (it is due to the weight of the air), it cannot possibly offer an explanation for what I described. I was talking about the motion of planets, asteroids, and comets, navigating spacecraft around the solar system, and the general relativistic effects (time dilation) needed for the GPS - all of which happen beyond the atmosphere.