Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[Native]

Except that anybody looking at the Newtonian equation of gravity will immediately see that it involves a force between any two masses. You can't divorce the mathematics from what it is saying about how things move, and why.

So it is working because the mathematics says so? So the mathematical calculations are the causal reasons of the planetary motions?
Yes I know. The planetary motions are caused by mathematical calculations What a nice cosmological explanation

 

[ratiocinator]

So it is working because the mathematics says so?

It's working because the mathematics makes correct predictions.

So the mathematical calculations are the causal reasons of the planetary motions?

No - the mathematics is a good model of the reasons. The mathematics (of Newtonian gravity) are based on a force that exists between any two masses. Therefore, the force is a good model of reality.

Good models of reality (ones that make accurate predictions) is what science does.

This isn't difficult - I really don't see why you can't understand.

 

[Polymath257]

So it is working because the mathematics says so? So the mathematical calculations are the causal reasons of the planetary motions?
Yes I know. The planetary motions are caused by mathematical calculations What a nice cosmological explanation

No, the mathematical calculations are based on the physical theory laying out the various causes and the equations to use for each cause. These are specific and precise equations. The mathematics then yields the predictions of what should be seen if the theory is correct. And, in fact, that is what actual observations agree with.

Now, if you want to present an alternative, say the EU, then you have to give specific equations to use (maybe Maxwell's equations?) along with how to determine which ones should be used in any given situation (which planets, where are they now, etc) and use some math to make *detailed* calculations and predictions of some event in the future (alternatively, use only data up to some point in the past and predict later events that we can verify).

This, at the *very* least, is what is required if you want to overturn the theory of gravity. But, there is the possibility of doing better: if you can make a detailed prediction that is *different* than the standard model prediction, and if your prediction turns out to be more accurate than the standard model, then you win! You will then have the evidence to overturn the standard model and make yours the new default.

Hop to it. Good luck!

 

[Native]

For the Newtonian approximation, you use F=GMm/r^2 and F=ma. Those two equations, proprly used, will give accurate predictions of the motions of the planets. The discrepancies for the planets closest to the sun are dealt with by General relativity.

Why are you coming up with this argument again? Several times I´ve accepted the calculations as fine, so why?

When will it get into your mind that I´m just criticising the whole underlaying gravitational ideology and not the calculations themselves?

You cannot explain anything of the celestial motions in our Solar System without including the motion and formation in the center of our Milky Way galaxy.

Even our ancestors new this for several thousands of years ago and this knowledge is embedded in their Stories of Creation.

Simply false. Here's an example.

After Uranus was discovered, it became clear after a while that its motion wasn't agreeing with the predictions of Newtonian gravity. Some people said that Newtonian gravity needed to be changed or given up. But, instead, a couple of men did some calculations based on Newtonian gravity and said that the problems with the motion of Uranus couldplained if there was another planet even further away from the sun that was affecting its motion. They were able to use Newtonian physics to predict where in the sky to look for that planet. When others actually looked, they found Neptune.

Don´t give me that explaining away! If you are updated on the cosmological problems, you must be aware of the three-body_problem - or more - which cannot be calculated at all.

On the other side, you have the EU theory. As yet, you have given *no* reason to think it can do detailed calculations giving the specific motions of the planets in the solar system. In fact, it can't even do detailed calculations for the motion of stars in the galaxy. It only gives vague claims that E&M is dominant without the calculations and tests to back up that claim.

For your information, the "EU" i.e EM theory begins for my part with the electromagnetic forces working on the plasma scale in the galactic center.

You can easily calculate all motions in our Solar System by noting the orbital velocity in the galaxy and when you consider the observed galactic rotation curve, you can deduce that we are talking of an outgoing formative motion from within the galactic center and outwards in the galactic surroundings.

That is really: The Solar System was formed in the galactic center and the very galactic orbital motion as well as the outgoing motion is STILL embedded in the planetary rotational and orbital motions.

If you aren´t aware of these overall cosmological facts, you can have NO idea of the EM theory, as well as any ideas of how to test the EM theory at all.

he same type of thing is happening with dark matter. The disagreements with observations are such that *one* addition to the system is enough to resolve the differences. Furthermore, that *one* addition can be tested in other ways and in other contexts and the predictios made have been verified by actual observations.

We are now able to give fairly extensive maps of where dark matter is. This would not be possible if the 'new addition' didn't represent something real and 'out there'. Like Neptune.

More explaining away the problems in the Newtonian ideas. Get rid of your dark ghosts and try to incorporate the real fundamental forces and then all your dark ad hoc problems are solved.

What you seem to want is to replace that system that *works* with one that doesn't make any specific, detailed, predictions and to do so only because it aligns with your ideas about how ancient civilizations had some spiritual insights.

You are conflating things here. Yes the system works according to the math, but the WHY-ideology socks in my opinion. If a system doesn´t explain WHY, it isn´t scientific at all and then it really doesn´t work.

I don´t base my convictions on the ancient cosmological knowledge only. I just get the similar cosmological knowledge by reading the modern findings in it´s correct overall context and by having a different approach to modern cosmology than most cosmologists have.

In other words: If you read the modern cosmological observations and genuine ideas into the cyclic mythical world perception of our ancestors, you get the real knowledge of everything.

As far as I´m concerned, all your maths are indifferent as long as your cosmological ideology are skewed and patched with all kinds of dark ghosts.

 

[Native]

No - the mathematics is a good model of the reasons. The mathematics (of Newtonian gravity) are based on a force that exists between any two masses. Therefore, the force is a good model of reality.

Try to test this force between more than 2 masses or objects

 

[Polymath257]

Why are you coming up with this argument again? Several times I´ve accepted the calculations as fine, so why?

Because agreement between the calculations and the observations is all that matters in science.

When will it get into your mind that I´m just criticising the whole underlaying gravitational ideology and not the calculations themselves?

You cannot explain anything of the celestial motions in our Solar System without including the motion and formation in the center of our Milky Way galaxy.

And yet, the current theory does exactly that. if it didn't, the calculations wouldn't agree with the observations.

Even our ancestors new this for several thousands of years ago and this knowledge is embedded in their Stories of Creation.

And our ancestors were wrong. So?

Don´t give me that explaining away! If you are updated on the cosmological problems, you must be aware of the three-body_problem - or more - which cannot be calculated at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

I am certainly more familiar with the complexities of the three body problem than you are. But the fact that there is not an *analytical* solution doesn't mean we can't do calculations of any accuracy required and compare them to observations.

For your information, the "EU" i.e EM theory begins for my part with the electromagnetic forces working on the plasma scale in the galactic center.
You can easily calculate all motions in our Solar System by noting the orbital velocity in the galaxy and when you consider the observed galactic rotation curve, you can deduce that we are talking of an outgoing formative motion from within the galactic center and outwards in the galactic surroundings.

If it is so easy, please give the calculations for the motion of Mars.

That is really: The Solar System was formed in the galactic center and the very galactic orbital motion as well as the outgoing motion is STILL embedded in the planetary rotational and orbital motions.

If you aren´t aware of these overall cosmological facts, you can have NO idea of the EM theory, as well as any ideas of how to test the EM theory at all.

Then please give the details. Give the calculations for, say, the motions of Mars. if they are as accurate or more accurate than the standard model, you have something worth discussing. otherwise, not.

More explaining away the problems in the Newtonian ideas. Get rid of your dark ghosts and try to incorporate the real fundamental forces and then all your dark ad hoc problems are solved.

Why should I? By adding in one more component, we get agreement with the observations. if you are lcaiming that isn't required under your system, please provide the detailed calculations supporting that claim, All I have seen is claims that EU explains everything. But I have yet to see the details of that explanation and any comparison to actual observations.

You are conflating things here. Yes the system works according to the math, but the WHY-ideology socks in my opinion. If a system doesn´t explain WHY it isn´t scientific at all and then it really doesn´t work.

And if the calculations work, the philosophy is irelevant. All that science requires is that the predictions agree with the observations. It doesn't have to fit your idea of how things 'must be'. it doesn't have to make you feel that things are 'sufficiently explained'. ALL it requires is that the calculations based on the theory agree with observations.

Furthermore, if your theory can't do that, it will be and should be ignored.

I don´t base my convictions on the ancient cosmological knowledge only. I just get the similar cosmological knowledge by reading the modern findings in it´s correct overall context and by having a different approach to modern cosmlogy than most cosmologists have.

In other words: If you read the modern cosmological observations and genuine ideas into the cyclic mythical world perception of our ancestors, you get the real knowledge of everything.

As far as I´m concerned, all your maths are indifferent as long as your cosmological idoology are skewed and patched with all kinds of dark ghosts.

If your ideology is correct, then make specific, detailed calculations and see if they agree with observations. If they do, then you have something to discuss. If not, then whatever you are tlaking about isn't science.

 

[Polymath257]

Try to test this force between more than 2 masses or objects

Cavendish experiment: Cavendish experiment - Wikipedia

This has since been done to much more accuracy, of course.

 

[Revoltingest]

So it is working because the mathematics says so? So the mathematical calculations are the causal reasons of the planetary motions?
Yes I know. The planetary motions are caused by mathematical calculations What a nice cosmological explanation

Consider a different perspective....
Mathematics doesn't cause anything.
It is only a language & set of tools used to describe what we observe.
These descriptions improve as we test, observe & understand more.
Older theories are replaced by new ones which better fit observations.
This is useful.
Dark matter isn't something added simply to make old theories work.
It's a discovery based upon existing theories, & will certainly lead to
revising other theories about matter.

 

[Native]

Because agreement between the calculations and the observations is all that matters in science.

Correct. If these calculations explains WHY (which they don´t) and not just HOW.

Native said: ↑
When will it get into your mind that I´m just criticising the whole underlaying gravitational ideology and not the calculations themselves?

You cannot explain anything of the celestial motions in our Solar System without including the motion and formation in the center of our Milky Way galaxy.

And yet, the current theory does exactly that. if it didn't, the calculations wouldn't agree with the observations.

Except from the fact that this current theory of celestial motion was directly contradicted in the Milky Way.

So how can it "be fine" in the Solar System and wrong the galactic realms where the Solar System is an integrated and orbital part?

And our ancestors were wrong. So?

Your wrong conclusion, not mine.

I leave you to ponder over the contradictions of the celestial motions in the Solar System compared to the motions in our galaxy and their causes.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Try to test this force between more than 2 masses or objects

Cavendish experiment: Cavendish experiment - Wikipedia

This has since been done to much more accuracy, of course.

I´m not talking of two iron balls, but of three or more celestial bodies.

 

[Polymath257]

Correct. If these calculations explains WHY (which they don´t) and not just HOW.

Nope. That is not required. Now, of course, the calculations involving gravity *do* also give why: the curvature of spacetime in response to mass and energy and the resulting motion in the curved spacetime giving orbits. But that isn't required.

Native said: ↑
When will it get into your mind that I´m just criticising the whole underlaying gravitational ideology and not the calculations themselves?

I understand that. I also understand that is irrelevant to science. if the calculations work, then the theory *is* the explanation.

You cannot explain anything of the celestial motions in our Solar System without including the motion and formation in the center of our Milky Way galaxy.

Except that the motions in the solar system *are* explained.

Except from the fact that this current theory of celestial motion was directly contradicted in the Milky Way.

So how can it "be fine" in the Solar System and wrong the galactic realms where the Solar System is an integrated and orbital part?

Well, because they *aren't* an integrated and orbital part in the sense you seem to think. The actual motions we see are predicted by those calculations. if the explanation based on gravity were not sufficient to explain the motion, then the calculations would give the *wrong* predictions. The fact that they give the *correct* predictions shows your influence from the galactic center isn't relevant at the level you claim.

Your wrong conclusion, not mine.

I leave you to ponder over the contradictions of the celestial motions in the Solar System compared to the motions in our galaxy and their causes.

And I'll leave you to do some actual calculations showing your theory has any chance of working.

You claimed that it is *easy* to explain the motions of the planets using EU. OK, do so. Give detailed calculations for the planet Mars. If your accuracy is within the level of accuracy of our measurements, then I will admit you have something to say.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Try to test this force between more than 2 masses or objects

I´m not talking of two iron balls, but of three or more celestial bodies.

OK, like the influence of Venus on the Earth? or on Mercury? or Jupiter on the rest of the planets? All with the sun as the dominant mass, of course.

Yes, this has been done. Such calculations gave the (small) corrections to the basic Kepler laws of motion and have been verified via observation.

 

[Native]

Consider a different perspective....
Mathematics doesn't cause anything.
It is only a language & set of tools used to describe what we observe.
These descriptions improve as we test, observe & understand more.
Older theories are replaced by new ones which better fit observations.
This is useful.

Thanks, I know

Dark matter isn't something added simply to make old theories work.
It's a discovery based upon existing theories, & will certainly lead to
revising other theories about matter.

I don´t agree with you in this. Dark matter was inserted in the theory because scientists didn´t look at the contradiction of celestial motion in the galaxy with other eyes but the gravitational ones.

So they did this partly because of ignorance and partly as patching their theory. Inserting unseen matters in cosmos isn´t specifically scientific either.

 

[Native]

I wrote:

Except from the fact that this current theory of celestial motion was directly contradicted in the Milky Way.

So how can it "be fine" in the Solar System and wrong the galactic realms where the Solar System is an integrated and orbital part?

Well, because they *aren't* an integrated and orbital part in the sense you seem to think. The actual motions we see are predicted by those calculations. if the explanation based on gravity were not sufficient to explain the motion, then the calculations would give the *wrong* predictions. The fact that they give the *correct* predictions shows your influence from the galactic center isn't relevant at the level you claim.

That wasn´t much pondering over an obvious cosmological problem!

OK, so the Solar System has nothing to do with the galaxy in which it is an orbiting part?

Good Grief! No wonder that there are so many cosmological theories!

 

[Native]

OK, like the influence of Venus on the Earth? or on Mercury? or Jupiter on the rest of the planets? All with the sun as the dominant mass, of course.

Yes, this has been done. Such calculations gave the (small) corrections to the basic Kepler laws of motion and have been verified via observation.

Are you sure to be updated on this issue? - Three-body problem - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

I don´t agree with you in this. Dark matter was inserted in the theory because scientists didn´t look at the contradiction of celestial motion in the galaxy with other eyes but the gravitational ones.

So they did this partly because of ignorance and partly as patching their theory. Inserting unseen matters in cosmos isn´t specifically scientific either.

Many things we accept as existing are unseen, ie, not visible by
emission or reflection of light. Gravity is one...can't see it, but
we detect it nonetheless. We just use other means.
Without going thru the history of how dark matter was discovered,
the best reason for adding it into the mix of physical phenomena
is that it results in the best (simplest testable) theory to fit the data.
No need to alter our understanding of gravity at all.
Do you know of a better explanation?

 

[Polymath257]

I wrote:

Except from the fact that this current theory of celestial motion was directly contradicted in the Milky Way.

So how can it "be fine" in the Solar System and wrong the galactic realms where the Solar System is an integrated and orbital part?

That wasn´t much pondering over an obvious cosmological problem!

OK, so the Solar System has nothing to do with the galaxy in which it is an orbiting part?

Good Grief! No wonder that there are so many cosmological theories!

Here's the question for you: if the overall motion of the galaxy has to be taken into account, how is it possible the calculations give the correct answers?

 

[Polymath257]

Are you sure to be updated on this issue? - Three-body problem - Wikipedia

How did that contradict anything I said?

 

[ecco]

Regarding "grammar": I would like to see you writing in the Danish language after having a three year ordinary school semester of learning the language. That could be very interesting and it quickly would shut you up regarding criticising your fellow debaters.

My apologies. I had forgotten that English is not your first language.

Yes I really am a bit agitated over debating myths with a fellow who regard the myths of creation to be just psychological fairy tales ...

Actually, you are debating with many people who regard the myths of creation to be just psychological fairy tales.

...even when a myth speaks of factual celestial objects.

Here is a myth that speaks of a factual celestial object...

So, Maui cut off the sacred tresses of his wife, Hina, to make a rope that would not burn in the Sun. With his rope he caught the Sun as it was rising and beat it with the magic jawbone of his grandmother. The Sun was so weak after the beating that it could not run but only creep along its course. In this way, sunlight lasted longer, and it was possible to work more during the day.
​

Would you give credence to this myth just because it speaks of a factual celestial object?

You can offer me nothing at all in a debate, so just don´t reply.

Well, I decided to reply. I'm also wondering why you have been unable to respond to my comment regarding programming a solar system simulator using only EU equations.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, I decided to reply. I'm also wondering why you have been unable to respond to my comment regarding programming a solar system simulator using only EU equations.

I would accept this instead of detailed calculations. That is, if the simulation agrees with observations.