Newton - The Last Of The Magicians

[Polymath257]

First: I should have written:
In fact, I´m convinced that the undivided EM Force really can constitute the Theory of Everything.

Secondly: No one can really explain how the Solar System works unless including the formational explanation of the Milky Way of which the Solar System is an integrated orbiting part.

Throughout the actual 34 pages in this topic, I´ve described the formational process in the Milky Way several times, governed by the EM.

The Solar System is formed in the center of the Milky Way by the attractive quality in EM which works strongest on the ionized plasma scale i.e. in "cosmic clouds of dust and gas". This EM attraction assembles dust and gas in a swirling mot4ioin in the galactic center into large spheres which become stars.

When these starry spheres reach a critical stage of weight, they are
expelled out from the galactic center out in the barred structure and further out in the galactic surroundings. On its way out of the barred structure, the planets are divided out from the hot Solar sphere and later on, the planetary moons are divided out from their hot mother planets.

All Solar System movements of rotations and orbital motions are a result of the motion of the EM force which initially started the motion in the galactic center, and the repulsive "birth motion" out from the galactic center STIILL works in the Solar System as the increased distance between the Earth and the Sun as well as between the Earth and the Moon. This outgoing motion from the galactic center also explain the observed galactic rotation curve.

Gravity? Is nowhere to bee seen or observed at all. It is the EM forces which binds everything together on the atomic scale and the feeling of weight on the Earth simply derives from the weight of the gaseous atmosphere, which for over 300 years ago, pushed Newtons apple to the ground.

Once again, all you have provided is an *outline*, a goal. There are no details about how the EM force produces this dynamic and matches observations.

So, start with the equations of EM (I'm not sure what you mean by 'undivided EM---could you elaborate?). Show that a model of the Milky way would produce the motions you claim above. Detail the charges required and the magnetic fields and show that the effect is to produce a solar system at the center and fling it out to where we are, together with the *detailed* motion of the planets.

YOu make a claim that the motions of the solar system are due to the larger motions in the galaxy. OK, provide details, based on the equations of EM to show this. Show that this gives orbits that are approximately elliptical for the planets around the sun and orbits for moons around the planets that are also.

Show, again only using EM, how we can direct a probe to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune using the equations of Newtonian gravity *and be wrong* and explain *in detail* what is happening via EM. In particular, what charges and fields does the probe experience to produce the motions we produced?

And, show *in detail* from the equations of EM how the galactic rotation curve is explained.

To be an actual theory, as opposed to a vague proposal, this type of thing is what needs to be done. To call it science before that s done is being dishonest.

 

[Native]

- the moon revolves around earth
- the earth and moon revolves around the sun
- the solar system revolves around the milky way
- other smaller satellite dwarf galaxies revolve around the milky way

My question; it seemed every thing revolves around another body

I agree in this and this seemingly also takes place all over in the observable part of the Universe with clusters and super clusters of galaxies.

IMO it is the Electromagnetic Force which governs it all, creating all rotations via the electric current itself and orbital motions via the perpendicular magnetic field.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree in this and this seemingly also takes place all over in the observable part of the Universe with clusters and super clusters of galaxies.

IMO it is the Electromagnetic Force which governs it all, creating all rotations via the electric current itself and orbital motions via the perpendicular magnetic field.

Demonstrate the existence of a perpendicular magnetic field of intensity sufficient to produce the observed orbits.

 

[Native]

Once again, all you have provided is an *outline*, a goal. There are no details about how the EM force produces this dynamic and matches observations.

So, start with the equations of EM (I'm not sure what you mean by 'undivided EM---could you elaborate?). Show that a model of the Milky way would produce the motions you claim above. Detail the charges required and the magnetic fields and show that the effect is to produce a solar system at the center and fling it out to where we are, together with the *detailed* motion of the planets.

YOu make a claim that the motions of the solar system are due to the larger motions in the galaxy. OK, provide details, based on the equations of EM to show this. Show that this gives orbits that are approximately elliptical for the planets around the sun and orbits for moons around the planets that are also.

Show, again only using EM, how we can direct a probe to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune using the equations of Newtonian gravity *and be wrong* and explain *in detail* what is happening via EM. In particular, what charges and fields does the probe experience to produce the motions we produced?

And, show *in detail* from the equations of EM how the galactic rotation curve is explained.

To be an actual theory, as opposed to a vague proposal, this type of thing is what needs to be done. To call it science before that s done is being dishonest.

I´m providing a description in plain words and logical sentenses and if you - or others - need some calculations, make them yourself.

Besides this: I´ve several times accepted the calculations in space travellings, but these can be done without using the Newtonian gravity invention.

 

[Polymath257]

I´m providing a description in plain words and logical sentenses and if you - or others - need some calculations, make them yourself.

Nope. Shifting the burden of proof is NOT how science is done. If you want to make a proposal, then you have to do the work.

Again, *all* you have done is given a rather vague goal. That is not how science is done.

Besides this: I´ve several times accepted the calculations in space travellings, but these can be done without using the Newtonian gravity invention.

But those calculations are *based* on Newtonian gravity! The details require the law of gravity to produce the observations. That means that if you reject gravity, you also reject the system in which those calculations are done.

Then you claim that EM is the appropriate force to be using. But you give no details how to apply EM to the solar system. In particular, why would the calculations that have been done, which are based on gravity, be appropriate for an EM description?

 

[Native]

Demonstrate the existence of a perpendicular magnetic field of intensity sufficient to produce the observed orbits.

Just take the estimated weight of the Milky Way and ascribe it to the force, which really governs the formation, the EM force.

 

[Native]

Nope. Shifting the burden of proof is NOT how science is done. If you want to make a proposal, then you have to do the work.

I really don´t care of any burdens at all. If you are seriously interested in this matter, your serious scientific curiosity should be sufficient enough to make the calculations yourself.

 

[Native]

But those calculations are *based* on Newtonian gravity! The details require the law of gravity to produce the observations. That means that if you reject gravity, you also reject the system in which those calculations are done.

Just insert the weigth of the gaseous atmosphere instead of "Newtons Applepie" and calculate the "planetary slingshot" as gaining velocity because of "slipstream" advances.

 

[Native]

Then you claim that EM is the appropriate force to be using. But you give no details how to apply EM to the solar system. In particular, why would the calculations that have been done, which are based on gravity, be appropriate for an EM description?

The only way the EM apply in the Solar System don´t deal with gravitational concerns at all. The matters of rotation and orbital motions happend initially in the center of the MIlky Way and thats´s it.

It´s just the solar EM influences on the Earth magnetic fields and the creation of all living things.

 

[Polymath257]

Just take the estimated weight of the Milky Way and ascribe it to the force, which really governs the formation, the EM force.

Please do. I'd like to see the results.

Just insert the weigth of the gaseous atmosphere instead of "Newtons Applepie" and calculate the "planetary slingshot" as gaining velocity because of "slipstream" advances.

Please do. I'd like to see the results.

I really don´t care of any burdens at all. If you are seriously interested in this matter, your serious scientific curiosity should be sufficient enough to make the calculations yourself.

Nope. That isn't how it works. The proposer of a hypothesis is the one that needs to do the work to justify that hypothesis.

Here's the issue: whenever *anyone* else has attempted to use EM to determine the observed motions, the project has failed. Clearly others are either too ignorant to do the calculations correctly or they simply don't work. So, give *your* calculations and show everyone else where they went wrong *in detail*.

The only way the EM apply in the Solar System don´t deal with gravitational concerns at all. The matters of rotation and orbital motions happend initially in the center of the MIlky Way and thats´s it.

It´s just the solar EM influences on the Earth magnetic fields and the creation of all living things.

Details, please.

OK, so you continue to only have vague hopes and no details. THAT is why this is ignored. And rightfully so. If you and those who believe in this fantasy can't do the calculations and show that they work, why should anyone else?

 

[Native]

Or, ancient people saw that things on Earth had cycles, like the seasons repeating themselves and the night/day cycle. They saw that there was light and dark and they saw polarities like male and female. So they based their limited understanding on what they saw.
Before Egypt all cultures worshiped solar deities so of course light was in their mythology. They thought the sun was god.

It doesn´t matter if ancient humans saw the Sun as a "god"! The Sun doesn´t care what it is called and it STILL represent a power of creation then and now.

That is why everyone was so crunk on light. Not because ancient people had some deep mystical understanding that modern man has "forgotten".

Contrary to this light worship, modern scientists are equally crunk on everything dark because they´ve forgot that it is the EM light which governs everything

Also the big bang has a cyclic model. Big bang, big crunch and so on? Ancient people didn't even understand the conservation laws? How can you get to a re-formation without some big bang type model? Or are those laws wrong too?

There is a big difference between the ancient understanding of a cyclic formation and a modern one. The Universe is eternal and it is just everything in it which undergoes an eternal change between formation, dissolution and re-formation. This is the outmost and logical understanding of the laws of conservation.

 

[Native]

Nope. That isn't how it works. The proposer of a hypothesis is the one that needs to do the work to justify that hypothesis.

I don´t care "how it works" at all. If you can´t grasp the logics or find it interesting, I don´t care either.

 

[Polymath257]

I don´t care "how it works" at all. If you can´t grasp the logics or find it interesting, I don´t care either.

I'd find it interesting if and only if you can provide details. If you don't care enough to do so, why should anyone else care?

At that point, the whole thing can be dismissed as incomplete nonsense.

 

[ecco]

I´m providing a description in plain words and logical sentenses and if you - or others - need some calculations, make them yourself.

I throw a ball into the air. It comes back down. The reason it comes back down is because the invisible fairies didn't want it, so they tossed it back to me.​

I´m providing a description in plain words and logical sentenses and if you - or others - need some calculations, make them yourself.

 

[ecco]

I don´t care "how it works" at all.

Ah, an honest admission.

 

[Polymath257]

I don´t care "how it works" at all. If you can´t grasp the logics or find it interesting, I don´t care either.

And again, I point out

Here's the issue: whenever *anyone* else has attempted to use EM to determine the observed motions, the project has failed. Clearly others are either too ignorant to do the calculations correctly or they simply don't work. So, give *your* calculations and show everyone else where they went wrong *in detail*.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And again, I point out

Here's the issue: whenever *anyone* else has attempted to use EM to determine the observed motions, the project has failed. Clearly others are either too ignorant to do the calculations correctly or they simply don't work. So, give *your* calculations and show everyone else where they went wrong *in detail*.

Believers in woo almost always try to shift the burden of proof. Their favorite claim is "prove me wrong" when the proper attitude is to give evidence and tests that support one's claims. In fact they love the untestable hypothesis since it cannot be proven wrong. And that moves them to the sad territory of "not even wrong". With a 'failed experiment ' there very often are clues as to what went wrong and we can at least take a step in the right direction, even if we do not get the answer that we wanted.

 

[joelr]

It doesn´t matter if ancient humans saw the Sun as a "god"! The Sun doesn´t care what it is called and it STILL represent a power of creation then and now.

Ancient people thought the sun was a power of creation because they thought the sun was god.
Now we know it's a star.
Again, if you think EM is something more than the standard model says them provide a theory.

IContrary to this light worship, modern scientists are equally crunk on everything dark because they´ve forgot that it is the EM light which governs everything

I know, scientists have forgotten so much, like that Jesus is king of the heavenly temple in the lower firmament, Zeus is the reason for lightning and there is one ring to rule them all.

If you think EM is something more than the standard model says them provide a theory.

IThere is a big difference between the ancient understanding of a cyclic formation and a modern one. The Universe is eternal and it is just everything in it which undergoes an eternal change between formation, dissolution and re-formation. This is the outmost and logical understanding of the laws of conservation.

There sure is a big difference between the ancient understanding of a cyclic formation and a modern one, the modern one uses science and the ancient one uses superstition.

As usual while science makes claims and tests them and is always open to new data, superstition doesn't need data, tests, predictions or any of that "science-y" stuff. It always just has the correct answer. I guess someone has to keep that tradition alive and kicking. Good luck with that.

If you want it to be part of science then provide a theory.


Where is the example of what's wrong with the big bang? You said the big bang model has problems. What problems?

 

[Native]

@Polymath257,
Native said: ↑
I don´t care "how it works" at all. If you can´t grasp the logics or find it interesting, I don´t care either.

Here's the issue: whenever *anyone* else has attempted to use EM to determine the observed motions, the project has failed. Clearly others are either too ignorant to do the calculations correctly or they simply don't work. So, give *your* calculations and show everyone else where they went wrong *in detail*.

1) If scientists uses terms and laws of the standing gravitational theories, they of course fails to determine the motions in the Milky Way caused by the EM.
2) As you know by know, I´m dealing with the formational proces in the Milky Way, using both ancient and modern knowledge.
3) It is a common scientific understanding and statement that "all cosmological explanations and mathematical calculations brakes down when it comes to the subject of the "black holes", so it is out of order to demand me to make some standard cosmology calculations where the scientists have given up.
4) If you and other debaters here really are interested in a possible EM, formation, the prime premisis is to unconditionally ACCEPT the EM force and it´s formative qualities and circuital motions and for the time being forget the standing doctrines.

 

[Native]

@Joelr,

I know, scientists have forgotten so much, like that Jesus is king of the heavenly temple in the lower firmament, Zeus is the reason for lightning and there is one ring to rule them all.
If you think EM is something more than the standard model says them provide a theory.

I´t s obvious that you are unfamiliar with the mythical language of symbolism, so you are really excused for not understanding what I´m writing about.

Native said: ↑
IThere is a big difference between the ancient understanding of a cyclic formation and a modern one. The Universe is eternal and it is just everything in it which undergoes an eternal change between formation, dissolution and re-formation. This is the outmost and logical understanding of the laws of conservation.

There sure is a big difference between the ancient understanding of a cyclic formation and a modern one, the modern one uses science and the ancient one uses superstition.

Try to read and understand the implications before you post your emotional replies.

As usual while science makes claims and tests them and is always open to new data, superstition doesn't need data, tests, predictions or any of that "science-y" stuff. It always just has the correct answer. I guess someone has to keep that tradition alive and kicking. Good luck with that.

"superstition doesn't need data"? This highly selfconfident and besserwissen statement fits very well to the subject of "black holes" where all informations and calculations brakes down and NO DATA can be found, thus determing "black holes" to be highly superstitious. Still you call this "science"

Regarding Big Bang problems, read here. Note the term "adjustable parameters" which is mentioned all through the article. This term is just another expression for "ad hoc assumptions" and lots of them.

Excerpt from the article:
"The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries.

Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered.

Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory".