Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[Subduction Zone]

What? Get real please! I hate to discuss with ghosts

I am serious. Of course you most likely do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. If you did you would realize why there isn't any for the EU model.

 

[Native]

My thoughts are that we seem to have a very good handle on the motion of the planets in our solar system.

SURE! The calculations works nicely as they are fit to follow the empirically observed planets.

But the CAUSES AND COSMIC CONNECTIONS are totally left out of the explanatons. Here the "gravity" is thought to govern it all and this ghost haunts the overall perspective in cosmos and skewes the perceptions in all levels.

 

[Subduction Zone]

SURE! The calculations works nicely as they are fit to follow the empirically observed planets.

But the CAUSES AND COSMIC CONNECTIONS are totally left out of the explanatons. Here the "gravity" is thought to govern it all and this ghost haunts the overall perspective in cosmos and skewes the perceptions in all levels.

No, they predict the motion before it occurs.

If you can't provide any predictions then your model is of no value.

 

[Native]

I am serious. Of course you most likely do not understand the concept of scientific evidence. If you did you would realize why there isn't any for the EU model.

You´re not just making circual arguments but now you also invent convenient Strawmen in order to back up your nothingness.

Just because you have NO IDEA of how the EM works, you cannot circularly conclude that your fellow debaters dont understand what they are talking about, can you Mr. Strawman?

 

[Polymath257]

SURE! The calculations works nicely as they are fit to follow the empirically observed planets.

OK. So *they work nicely*.

But the CAUSES AND COSMIC CONNECTIONS are totally left out of the explanatons.

I'd debate that, but it is ultimately irrelevant. The calculations work. THAT IS ALL THAT IS REQUIRED.

And it is far from being a trivial thing to accomplish.

Here the "gravity" is thought to govern it all and this ghost haunts the overall perspective in cosmos and skewes the perceptions in all levels.

Then give detailed calculations based on your viewpoint to show a better fit to the actual observations. In particular, within the solar system, you should be able to use your theory to give the positions of the planets to within an arc second over the course of a century. That is the level of accuracy you need to be taken seriously in this.

So, let's see detailed results at the level of the solar system. We have the observational data. We can give as much as you would like. Take that data, say up to 1960, and put it into your theory and make any prediction of the position of the planets currently. If you can do so without using gravity, then you win. You get to have your ideas heard at the next level.

 

[Polymath257]

No, they predict the motion before it occurs.

If you can't provide any predictions then your model is of no value.

Yes, this is crucial. Take the data up to some point and *predict* what will happen after that. Given that we can predict the timing of lunar eclipses to the second and do so a century ahead of time, that takes a fair degree of 'understanding' of the system.

 

[Native]

No, they predict the motion before it occurs.

Of course they do! Once known, my Grand Mother can predict the very same.

Read carefully now: They STILL don´t explain WHY the planets mowes as observed!
They STILL assumes "gravity" to be the cause of the motions, when the causes REALLY derives from the galactic motion and formation itself.

These gravitational assumptions are just cosmic ghosts.

 

[Native]

I'd debate that, but it is ultimately irrelevant.

So you just judge this to be irrelevant BEFORE you debate this? What kind of a scientific debate is this? Good Grief!

 

[Polymath257]

So you just judge this to be irrelevant BEFORE you debate this? What kind of a scientific debate is this? Good Grief!

Yes, it is irrelevant. Unless you can do detailed calculations that match actual observations, any amount of philosophizing is completely irrelevant.

On the other hand, if you can do detailed calculations and those calculations fit the observations, any amount of philosophical discourse is equally irrelevant.

The *whole game* is whether you can make detailed predictions that match observation. That is the *only* thing that is relevant in a scientific theory.

 

[Polymath257]

Of course they do! Once known, my Grand Mother can predict the very same.

Read carefully now: They STILL don´t explain WHY the planets mowes as observed!

And if the calculations accurately fit the observations, that is irrelevant.

But, of course, the actual descriptions used *do* give the causes for the motion. The causes are the gravitational effects of the sun and other planets.

They STILL assumes "gravity" to be the cause of the motions, when the causes REALLY derives from the galactic motion and formation itself.

These gravitational assumptions are just cosmic ghosts.

Well, that is your claim. Now back your claim up with detailed calculations that match observations. Use your theory to predict when the next lunar eclipse will be *to the second* and you have done the *first* step.

 

[Native]

Yes, this is crucial. Take the data up to some point and *predict* what will happen after that. Given that we can predict the timing of lunar eclipses to the second and do so a century ahead of time, that takes a fair degree of 'understanding' of the system.

You just don´t fool me This was a known fact in many of the ancient cultures - and they possibly knew nothing at all of the strange idea of "gravity".

Dont get too scientifically cocky over nothing at all.

 

[Native]

But, of course, the actual descriptions used *do* give the causes for the motion. The causes are the gravitational effects of the sun and other planets.

And the fact that the entire Solar System is orbiting another assumed "gravitational center" in the Milky Way, is entirely indifferent, you think?

Well, that is your claim. Now back your claim up with detailed calculations that match observations. Use your theory to predict when the next lunar eclipse will be *to the second* and you have done the *first* step.

You just don´t get it do you?

I already admitted that the calculations are just fine - but the causal, natural and philosophical explanations just sucks, completely drowned in all kinds of mental and intellectual speculations.

In this way modern scientists claims all things to be of gravitational nature where the nature itself speaks of all other fundamental forces but gravity.

 

[Polymath257]

And the fact that the entire Solar System is orbiting another assumed "gravitational center" in the Milky Way, is entirely indifferent, you think?

On the scale of the solar system and to the level of accuracy that we can achieve? yes.

You just don´t get it do you?

I already admitted that the calculations are just fine

Good. That ends the debate because that is all that is required.

- but the causal, natural and philosophical explanations just sucks, completely drowned in all kinds of mental and intellectual speculations.

In this way modern scientists claims all things to be of gravitational nature where the nature itself speaks of all other fundamental forces but gravity.

We have two viewpoints here.

One has detailed calculations that agree with observations (as you admit above). it *does* have causes, but not the ones you seem to want.

The other has the causes you want, but no actual calculations, and no details, just general statements.

Guess which viewpoint wins in a scientific discussion? Hint: it isn't the second one.

 

[Polymath257]

You just don´t fool me This was a known fact in many of the ancient cultures - and they possibly knew nothing at all of the strange idea of "gravity".

Not at the level of predicting to the *second*. Often, they could predict a day, but not a location. And accuracy to within an hour was beyond them.

Dont get too scientifically cocky over nothing at all.

I'm not. But I also won't deny the obvious successes of the science we have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course they do! Once known, my Grand Mother can predict the very same.

Read carefully now: They STILL don´t explain WHY the planets mowes as observed!
They STILL assumes "gravity" to be the cause of the motions, when the causes REALLY derives from the galactic motion and formation itself.

These gravitational assumptions are just cosmic ghosts.

No your grandmother cannot. You see one must be able to do the math.

I have found that people that can't do the math seem to think that one answer is as good as any other. That is not the case. And as you pointed out earlier, by your own standards people should be ignoring you. You should at least be able to do the math so that you can understand Newtonian mechanics.

 

[ecco]

ecco:

• Heliocentricity would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• Evolution would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• The expanding universe would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• Plate tectonics would never have been accepted by the scientific community.
• The scablands would never have been accepted by the scientific community.

Because I know from own experiences and from lots of others who have tried to get articles through the Peer Review system.

Consensus reviewers simply can´t see the new ideas - very much like on this debate .

Then how do you explain the acceptance, by the scientific community, of...

• Heliocentricity
• Evolution
• The expanding universe
• Plate tectonics
• The scablands

New ideas do get accepted all the time - if they present verifiable evidence. If your papers were not accepted, perhaps it was because you did not / could not provide verifiable evidence.

Here, on this forum, you, or anyone, can post all kinds of BS "theories". We have no standards. But in the real world, ya gotta know what you're talkin' about.

 

[ecco]

Of course not. Why would I waste my time trying to become an expert in something that has been thoroughly debunked by people who know far more than me on this subject?

I don't have to be an expert in dowsing, astrology, spoon bending or telepathy to know they are all childish nonsense.

I also don't have to be an expert in aeronautics to feel safe in the airplanes I ride in.

Well, maybe not an expert, but you have at the least to be familiar with the overall ideas.
If not, you end up with just the negative personal comments - as you´ve done here and otherwhere on the debates.

So you´ve now overcome your intellectual lazyness

You accuse me of being intellectually lazy. However, I have familiarized myself with the subject. As I pointed out earlier, I followed your multiple dead-end links and also found there is a much larger group that shares some of your beliefs. If I was "intellectually lazy" I would not have taken the time to do that.

One reason I followed your links is that I have found that often people post links to articles that allegedly support their assertions. However, upon actually reading the articles, I often find that the articles in no way support the poster's assertions. If you don't like my exposing your incorrect claims, then, in the future, don't make them.

Lastly, you accuse me of making "negative personal comments" but excuse yourself for falsely labeling me "intellectually lazy". That seems rather hypocritical.

 

[ecco]

Conclusion: They are nothing more than good examples of poor models that the vast majority of humans, scientists and lay people, rightly reject.

Of course one cannot take a debater serious when he refuse to study anything of the matters.

See above post #297...

Furthermore, I am not the only one who disagrees with your "theories". All of mainstream science (ya know, the people who really study these matters) rejects your "theories".

 

[ecco]

Native said: ↑
That´s easy to understand. The dogmatic Peer Review system aren´t fitted in order to accept alternative second thoughts at all.

Most of these examples arrived long before the modern Peer Review system was made.

Every new concept has always been peer reviewed. The only difference is that now it is formalized. Just look at the debates surrounding some of Einstein's thoughts and concepts. There was great dissension and debate. In some cases Einstein's ideas prevailed, in others, they did not.

The difference between you and the EUers and the Einsteins and Bohrs is not a peer review process. The difference is that the Einsteins and Bohrs were able to support there views with evidence whereas you and the EUers have no evidence.

Just think of it: If a person really came up with a very new cosmological idea, he then would be judged by Consensus Censors who would have NO CLUES of the alternative ideas and its cosmological implications.

The main reason that they have "NO CLUES of the ... cosmological implications" is because you and yours cannot present any evidence to support your allegations.

In this way Consensus Censors acts like stupid persons who hinders new ideas -

Actually, the opposite is true. They hinder stupid persons from having their stupid ideas taken seriously.

This system is really nothing worth al all and it makes us all more and more stupid.

Gol-lee, Mr Jones, everyone is just so biased against me and my new ideas that they just won't even give me a chance to publish my articles. Boo hoo.


​

 

[ecco]

SURE! The calculations works nicely as they are fit to follow the empirically observed planets.

But the CAUSES AND COSMIC CONNECTIONS are totally left out of the explanatons. Here the "gravity" is thought to govern it all and this ghost haunts the overall perspective in cosmos and skewes the perceptions in all levels.

Here...
Simulator online revolution orbits of the planets — Astronoo
...is one of many apps that shows where the planets are, where they are going to be, and where they were in the past.

These programs use the formulas of gravity to calculate the motions and past and future positions.

Astronomers who take pictures of the night skies can easily verify the correctness of, at least, where planets were in the past.

A test of the correctness of EU would merely involve someone writing a program showing past and future planetary positions with all calculations based on EU instead of gravity.

Surely, among the many believers in the Thunderbolts Project, there must be a few people trained in writing computer programs.