Galactic Telescope Interpretations

[ecco]

You must be kidding! Most of the data in his videos refers to consensus ideas which Samuel Gareth analyse logically and give his alternate comments, but obviously you even didn´t grasped his critical comparisons.

Again: But obviously you even didn´t grasped his critical comparisons.

I understand your question very well: You have deposited all your beliefs in scientific consensus dogmas, hence you´re only believing in university authorities - and give a dam for those who have independent thoughts of what´s goin on in modern cosmology.

And then you post your usual theoretical parroting about scientific method and bla bla - without even thinking of if your science obey their own rules.

You´re simply referring to your theoretical claims because you (of course) failed to understand Samuel Gareth´s most simple points.

As usual, one cannot expect any factual substance and logical arguments from you. You´re an excellent theoretical theorist and copy-paster, but that's all IMO.

You wrote...

Samuel Gareth ... give his alternate comments
didn´t grasped his critical comparisons​

This is an interesting response to @gnostic's comments that the video contained no evidence. You just admitted that the video contains no evidence. Bravo!

Or perhaps you think comments and comparisons are evidence. Well, yeah, you probably do.

 

[gnostic]

I said earlier that:
And then you post your usual theoretical parroting about scientific method and bla bla - without even thinking of if your science obey their own rules.
And:
You´re an excellent theoretical theorist and copy-paster, but that's all IMO.

Anyone can post videos at YouTube, and they can post all sort of non-scientific claims and express them as if they were “scientific”.

It is called propaganda, and when they offer no data and no predictive modeling for anyone to view, but still claiming to be alternative to current accepted and tested cosmology, then it is merely pseudoscience conspiracy theory.

That’s how I view videos from both Samuel and Robitaille. Neither of them presented the mathematical models or predictive models, and neither of them tested their claims, nor presented their data, tells me they are prepared to do the hard works.

And secondly, I didn’t copy-and-paste. If I did, I would put them in quotes.

Why do insist on lying on things I didn’t do?

Your earlier post, you claimed I didn’t watch video, when I told you I did, you presented more strawman excuses.

I presented what scientific method and theoretical modeling are, in my own words, and now you are claiming I had copy-and-paste, when I didn’t.

Is that how this thread really are going, you using all sort of conspiracy theory tactics, throwing all sorts of strawman argument and moving the goalposts whenever I address your points?

I think I am nearing done with this topic.

 

[gnostic]

Or perhaps you think comments and comparisons are evidence. Well, yeah, you probably do.

That's Native's problem.

Native think that any comments, any new ideas, can be simply accepted without testing, without evidence and without data.

 

[Native]

Most people, today, know the difference between science and philosophy. Your posts tell us that you still believe they are one and the same.

I really don´t care about the today differences between scientific branches as they all were assembled in 1 telling in ancient and historic times until the modern "Babel Tower Curse" took over.

Nonsense. But, perhaps I'm wrong. Please show a philosophical paper negating Einstein's work.

IMO you cannot get new ideas unless having a philosophical ponder of the problematics in a theory.

Yes. We know. That is precisely why your EM ideas and concepts are just ideas and concepts and not worthy of very much scientific scrutiny. Actually, they don't get much attention from philosophers either, do they. I wonder why. Perhaps for the same reason that scientists don't evaluate ghost sightings and philosophers could care less about them.

I can´t se how general separations of approaches can be of any advance at all. And if you exclude EM ideas in general, you lose 3/4 % explanations of the fundamental forces.

As a proponent of "Standard Cosmology" in general, I wouldn´t speak too much of "ghost sightings". I think we´ve quite enough of those already:
Newtons unexplained "occult gravity agency" - dark matter - dark energy - dark holes . . .

 

[Native]

You claimed nothing much about your video. That's why I seriously doubt anyone bothered to watch it.

OK if so, apparently one cannot expect some debaters to listen to a video content and give their own thoughts of it - which was what I asked for.

Native said: ↑
There is a growing awareness that the standard model of cosmology is in crisis.

That really sounds exactly like the Creationists: There is a growing awareness that the standard model of Evolution is in crisis.
Both have an equal amount of truth - none.

It´s OK by me if you don´t follow up on the critical articles of modern cosmology - but then don´t expose your lack of updates here.

 

[Native]

Anyone can post videos at YouTube, and they can post all sort of non-scientific claims and express them as if they were “scientific”.
It is called propaganda, and when they offer no data and no predictive modeling for anyone to view, but still claiming to be alternative to current accepted and tested cosmology, then it is merely pseudoscience conspiracy theory.

How would you even differ what is genuine factual cosmological knowledge or new ideas and data?

96 % of your standard cosmological ideas are totally in the black - and you clearly haven´t shown any signs of understanding new approaches or ideas at all.

One could just as well claim you as a collective victim of authoritative hypnotists who believe in 96 % darkness. Now THERE you have some of a pseudoscientific conspiracy going on.

That’s how I view videos from both Samuel and Robitaille. Neither of them presented the mathematical models or predictive models, and neither of them tested their claims, nor presented their data, tells me they are prepared to do the hard works.

I bet you even didn´t knew the least of what both persons are talking about. And Robitaille have posted LOTS of articles including math. But as usual, you don´t listen to a video and you don´t research anything before going in total denial mode.

I think I am nearing done with this topic.

Fine by me as I´m tired of fighting with your sub-conscious and biased disconnected intellect.

 

[ecco]

I really don´t care about the today differences between scientific branches as they all were assembled in 1 telling in ancient and historic times until the modern "Babel Tower Curse" took over.

What 'modern "Babel Tower Curse' are you talking about?

IMO you cannot get new ideas unless having a philosophical ponder of the problematics in a theory.

You seem to be under the impression that all people with inquiring minds are philosophers. Utter rubbish. One-year-olds are curious. My cat is curious.

I can´t se how general separations of approaches can be of any advance at all. And if you exclude EM ideas in general, you lose 3/4 % explanations of the fundamental forces.

Aren't you the guy who wants to disregard gravity?

As a proponent of "Standard Cosmology" in general, I wouldn´t speak too much of "ghost sightings". I think we´ve quite enough of those already:
Newtons unexplained "occult gravity agency" - dark matter - dark energy - dark holes . . .

Another weird unintelligible comment.

 

[ecco]

OK if so, apparently one cannot expect some debaters to listen to a video content and give their own thoughts of it - which was what I asked for.

You asked that, but you were too lazy to do that yourself and then use the video for corroboration. Given @gnostic's comments, that's understandable. You were probably hoping no one would actually watch the video so that you could complain that no one watched your video.

Watch this (you really need to).

It´s OK by me if you don´t follow up on the critical articles of modern cosmology - but then don´t expose your lack of updates here.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to post a link to a scholarly article that explains how gravity has nothing to do with planetary orbits.

Speaking of which. There are hundreds of computer simulations of the planetary orbits where the programmers use the laws of motion and gravity to make the simulation. You don't believe it's gravity that does this. You believe it has something to do with EM.

A year ago I challenged you, and people who believe as you do, to write a computer simulation of the orbits of the planets substituting the laws/rules/whatever of EM for gravity. STILL WAITING. There is a really simple explanation for why no one has been able to do this. Your EM theories and beliefs are nonsensical.

 

[rational experiences]

Machines lie.

Science first is a living human owning natural sight as natural observation balanced in clear gas ratio to burning gas.

What you see observed first is correct observation about self on earth inside it's heavens as seeing.

Natural science first observation equals human self answered first.

Machine observations are equal to the pattern design machine body as an equals observation of a first observer comparing patterns to forms.

Rationally as bodies in space are interactive with huge spatial void first naturally.

So is our heavens void owned giving you correct observation for life on earth by earths lens as your eyes as compared to machine lens.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I really don´t care about the today differences between scientific branches as they all were assembled in 1 telling in ancient and historic times until the modern "Babel Tower Curse" took over.

What 'modern "Babel Tower Curse' are you talking about?

It should be obvious when you read and understand the entire sentence.

Native said: ↑
IMO you cannot get new ideas unless having a philosophical ponder of the problematics in a theory.

You seem to be under the impression that all people with inquiring minds are philosophers.

It´s the other way around: Philosophers have inquiring minds. Non philosophers just repeat consensus dogmas and ad hoc assumptions.

Native said: ↑
And if you exclude EM ideas in general, you lose 3/4 % explanations of the fundamental forces.

Aren't you the guy who wants to disregard gravity?

What has the rejection and exclusion of the 3/4 fundamental E&M forces to do with your gravity question?

Native said: ↑
As a proponent of "Standard Cosmology" in general, I wouldn´t speak too much of "ghost sightings". I think we´ve quite enough of those already:
Newtons unexplained "occult gravity agency" - dark matter - dark energy - dark holes . . .

Another weird unintelligible comment.

It was you who started out with your "ghost sightings" and I was just that friendly to inform you of the standard cosmology ghost sightings.

 

[Native]

You asked that, but you were too lazy to do that yourself and then use the video for corroboration. Given @gnostic's comments, that's understandable. You were probably hoping no one would actually watch the video so that you could complain that no one watched your video.

I don´t care about your sub-conscious guesswork assumptions and strawmen.

Watch this (you really need to).

Why on Earth would I need to watch a video on "gravity" which don´t explain what gravity is made of?

Perhaps you would be kind enough to post a link to a scholarly article that explains how gravity has nothing to do with planetary orbits.

That would be somewhat difficult as scholarly articles of these kinds per automatics are "scholarly fellow peer reviewed and rejected" to live their lives otherwhere in the net. You can ask yourself why it is so.

Shortly: The feeling of weight on the Earth derives from pressures in generally and not from a pull from a strong dwarf sitting inside the Earth. The orbital motions of planets derives directly from the very Milky Way E&M formation of the Solar System which ALSO have nothing to do with "gravity" as a "cosmic cloud of dust and gas" cannot do colliding work on itself according to the thermodynamic laws.

Speaking of which. There are hundreds of computer simulations of the planetary orbits where the programmers use the laws of motion and gravity to make the simulation.

You can insert the laws of "weight of air" as in the atmospheric pressure and use these laws instead of Newtons "gravity" and the rest is just a question of knowing where the planets are positioned in space and what force and angle it takes to direct the spacecrafts to the goal.

Scientists think they are using Newtons "g", but in fact they´re are using the weight from the atmospheric pressure on Earth and the "solar wind". In space they are using simple orbital velocity lee-side effects from planets to be sling shot out in space. And by spacecraft reentrance they logically again also have to consider the atmospheric resistance density pressure and entrance angle if landing safely.

It´s really that simple. You don´t have to explain "gravity". Just insert the obvious factors and then you can discard Newtons "occult agency" all over in the Universe.

A year ago I challenged you, and people who believe as you do, to write a computer simulation of the orbits of the planets substituting the laws/rules/whatever of EM for gravity. STILL WAITING. There is a really simple explanation for why no one has been able to do this. Your EM theories and beliefs are nonsensical.

I bet I´ve explained this several times without you even trying to understand it.

I think it´s nonsensical by you and consensus "thinkers" to take an invented silly weak force to have more influence than the defined much stronger E&M forces in cosmos and otherwhere.

 

[ecco]

It should be obvious when you read and understand the entire sentence.

If it was obvious, I wouldn't have asked. Maybe you can always understand the ____ you are writing. Not so for others of us.

It´s the other way around: Philosophers have inquiring minds. Non philosophers just repeat consensus dogmas and ad hoc assumptions.

I'll repeat what you chose to ignore. Curious people have inquiring minds. I'm curious enough about your EM stuff to have asked why no EM proponent has been able to make a computer simulation of the solar system without gravity. You have not responded. Aren't you curious about why no EM proponent has been able to make a computer simulation of the solar system without gravity? That doesn't say much for your philosophical inquiring mind.

What has the rejection and exclusion of the 3/4 fundamental E&M forces to do with your gravity question?

What does your rejection of gravity controlling the motions of the planets have to do with reality?
By the way, I don't reject electro magnetic force. I reject your interpretation of it. Do you understand the difference?

It was you who started out with your "ghost sightings" and I was just that friendly to inform you of the standard cosmology ghost sightings.

Another weird unintelligible comment. Again. Are you referring to this comment you made "Newtons unexplained "occult gravity agency" - dark matter - dark energy - dark holes ."? Did you expect me to look something up when you are too lazy or too uninformed to present an argument yourself?

 

[ecco]

I don´t care about your sub-conscious guesswork assumptions and strawmen.

Hmm. Seems like I hit home. You were hoping no one would watch your hour-long nonsense video.

Why on Earth would I need to watch a video on "gravity" which don´t explain what gravity is made of?

What happened to your philosophical inquiring mind?

RE: Produce a scholarly article that explains how gravity has nothing to do with planetary orbits.

That would be somewhat difficult as scholarly articles of these kinds per automatics are "scholarly fellow peer-reviewed and rejected" to live their lives otherwhere in the net. You can ask yourself why it is so.

That's the same copout that Creationists use when asked why no one publishes any of their "creation science" articles. Actually, the EM crowd and Creationists have a lot in common. Both call their views science. Yet science rejects their views completely. It boggles the mind.

 

[ecco]

Shortly: The feeling of weight on the Earth derives from pressures in generally and not from a pull from a strong dwarf sitting inside the Earth. The orbital motions of planets derives directly from the very Milky Way E&M formation of the Solar System which ALSO have nothing to do with "gravity" as a "cosmic cloud of dust and gas" cannot do colliding work on itself according to the thermodynamic laws.

If that much is known about the subject, then why can no one create a computer simulation of the motions of the objects in the solar system using EM instead of gravity?

You can insert the laws of "weight of air" as in the atmospheric pressure and use these laws instead of Newtons "gravity" and the rest is just a question of knowing where the planets are positioned in space and what force and angle it takes to direct the spacecrafts to the goal.

If that much is known about the subject, then why can no one create a computer simulation of the motions of the objects in the solar system using EM instead of gravity?

Scientists think they are using Newtons "g", but in fact they´re are using the weight from the atmospheric pressure on Earth and the "solar wind". In space they are using simple orbital velocity lee-side effects from planets to be sling shot out in space. And by spacecraft reentrance they logically again also have to consider the atmospheric resistance density pressure and entrance angle if landing safely.

Utter nonsense. Why would you post such an easily refutable idea? The moon has gravity. The moon has no atmospheric pressure.

Mars gravity 3.721 m/s^2
Earth gravity 9.807 m/s^2

A ratio of roughly 2.6:1

Mars atmospheric pressure 0.095 psi
Earth atmospheric pressure 14.7 psi

A ratio of roughly 154:1

We know the gravitational pull of earth and mars because we have placed things in orbit around both and we have landed things from orbit from both.

For your "atmospheric pressure theory" to be correct, the gravitational attraction of Mars should be 0.66 m/s^2 instead of 3.721.
Or...
For your "atmospheric pressure theory" to be correct, the atmospheric pressure on Mars should be 5.6 psi instead of 0.095.

Has your philosophical inquiring mind never bothered to do basic math on information that is readily available?

It´s really that simple. You don´t have to explain "gravity". Just insert the obvious factors and then you can discard Newtons "occult agency" all over in the Universe.

Well, then, see above and just insert the "obvious factors" and produce a computer simulation of the motions of the objects in the solar system. I asked over a year ago, and you still have been unable to produce one.

I bet I´ve explained this several times without you even trying to understand it.

I'll try much harder to understand it when you produce evidence for it - like a computer simulation of the motions of the objects in the solar system. Until then, all we have is your opinions and youtube videos which provide no more evidence than what you write in RF - No Evidence!

[QUOTE="Native, post: 7194949, member: 32289"
I think it´s nonsensical by you and consensus "thinkers" to take an invented silly weak force to have more influence than the defined much stronger E&M forces in cosmos and otherwhere.[/QUOTE]

Well, it could be that they can use that knowledge to produce computer simulations of the motions of the objects in the solar system. It could be that they can use that knowledge to land rovers on Mars and measure air pressure.

That is something you and your EMers cannot do.

I guess your philosophical mind accepts stuff when there is no evidence for it and for which there is vast evidence against it. That's one reason why I prefer science over philosophy.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
It should be obvious when you read and understand the entire sentence.

If it was obvious, I wouldn't have asked.

Native said: ↑
I really don´t care about the today differences between scientific branches as they all were assembled in 1 telling in ancient and historic times until the modern "Babel Tower Curse" took over.

What words in this sentence is it you don´t understand?

I´m comparing the ancient assembled mythical knowledge of everything with the modern divisions in scientific branches - which has caused allegorical confusions in modern sciences - as those referred from the biblical telling of the Babel Tower.

Do I really have to repeat my comments several times before you understand them?

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
That would be somewhat difficult as scholarly articles of these kinds per automatics are "scholarly fellow peer-reviewed and rejected" to live their lives otherwhere in the net. You can ask yourself why it is so.

That's the same copout that Creationists use when asked why no one publishes any of their "creation science" articles. Actually, the EM crowd and Creationists have a lot in common. Both call their views science. Yet science rejects their views completely. It boggles the mind.

Strangely enough you´re more correct than you think yourself here. Both the EM and the biblical telling of creation has LIGHT to be the creative/formative powers

 

[Native]

Utter nonsense. Why would you post such an easily refutable idea? The moon has gravity. The moon has no atmospheric pressure.

Mars gravity 3.721 m/s^2
Earth gravity 9.807 m/s^2

A ratio of roughly 2.6:1

Mars atmospheric pressure 0.095 psi
Earth atmospheric pressure 14.7 psi

A ratio of roughly 154:1

We know the gravitational pull of earth and mars because we have placed things in orbit around both and we have landed things from orbit from both.

For your "atmospheric pressure theory" to be correct, the gravitational attraction of Mars should be 0.66 m/s^2 instead of 3.721.
Or...
For your "atmospheric pressure theory" to be correct, the atmospheric pressure on Mars should be 5.6 psi instead of 0.095.

You ignore the orbital velocity resistance pressure on these celestial objects which provides "the feeling/measurement of gravity".

I'll try much harder to understand it when you produce evidence for it - like a computer simulation of the motions of the objects in the solar system. Until then, all we have is your opinions and youtube videos which provide no more evidence than what you write in RF - No Evidence!

Well your Newtonian "gravity" failed completely on the galactic scale in where the Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way rotation and formation.

STILL this contradicted Newtonian gravity dogma is used all over in the Universe and in thousands of computer simulations.

I guess your philosophical mind accepts stuff when there is no evidence for it and for which there is vast evidence against it. That's one reason why I prefer science over philosophy.

Well, it certainly isn´t me who believe in Newtons contradicted superstitious occult agency, in dark matter and dark energy and a superstitious creation from a super atom.

 

[ecco]

What words in this sentence is it you don´t understand?

I´m comparing the ancient assembled mythical knowledge of everything with the modern divisions in scientific branches - which has caused allegorical confusions in modern sciences - as those referred from the biblical telling of the Babel Tower.

Do I really have to repeat my comments several times before you understand them?

If you repeat: "I´m comparing the ancient assembled mythical knowledge of everything with the modern divisions in scientific branches - which has caused allegorical confusions in modern sciences - as those referred from the biblical telling of the Babel Tower" one hundred times I still will not be able to make sense of it.


What does "ancient assembled mythical knowledge of everything" mean?
Are you implying that the ancients had knowledge of everything?
Are you implying that the knowledge of the ancients was only about things mythical?
What "allegorical confusions in modern sciences" are you referring to?
The biblical telling of "Babel Tower" says nothing about science or about knowledge of everything. Why mention it? Babel Tower is a story concocted by mortal men to answer: Oh Great Wise One, why do so many people talk so many different ways?

 

[ecco]

You ignore the orbital velocity resistance pressure on these celestial objects which provides "the feeling/measurement of gravity".

"Orbital velocity resistance pressure"? Oh, I get it. You mean something like the solar wind. The one that "pushes" against the side of the earth facing the sun with much greater "pressure" than the side facing away from the sun. You mean something like the jet stream which allows planes to travel more quickly west to east compared to east to west. But if that were the case, gravity on one side of the earth, mars, moon, etc would be higher than on the other side. The scientists making the calculations for landing a spacecraft don't take your Orbital velocity resistance pressure into account (since they don't believe in it). So how is it that they can land on either side of the earth or Mars without crashing due to miscalculations?

Once you answer that, please tell me why you and your fellow EMers can't make a computer simulation of the solar system's objects. Surely by now they have measured the "force" of the Orbital velocity resistance pressure on various parts of the earth.

Well your Newtonian "gravity" failed completely on the galactic scale in where the Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way rotation and formation.

What do you mean "in where the Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way rotation and formation"? Isn't that everywhere? Isn't that right here right now? Can you and your EMers calculate it? I didn't think so,

Well, it certainly isn´t me who believe in Newtons contradicted superstitious occult agency, in dark matter and dark energy and a superstitious creation from a super atom.

I don't think Newton believed in Dark Matter and Dark Energy so I can't be sure what you are talking about.

Perhaps you mean the Dark Matter and Dark Energy believed in by scientists with advanced degrees who research and study these things. Those people compare favorably to the likes of you and your EMers who, apparently cannot measure your Orbital velocity resistance pressure and therefore cannot produce any evidence to support their claims, not even a simple simulation of the solar system.



ETA: I don't believe in the "superstitious creation from a super atom". I don't believe in any superstitious creation.

 

[gnostic]

It´s OK by me if you don´t follow up on the critical articles of modern cosmology - but then don´t expose your lack of updates here.

Gareth’s video is a “critical article”. If it was, it would have mathematical modeling (equations) and data (eg measurements, quantities) from observations that represented his cosmology, and people would be able to analyze his works.

All his video showed that he have some flashy special effects without a single equation, without any data whatsoever, so his computer simulations are nothing more than fake fabrication.

And it is the same with videos from Robitaille, special effects without data, without mathematical equations, hence without substances.

You still cannot comprehend that even when a physicist start a new hypothesis, before he even to write an explanation of the phenomena, he must have at least preliminary observations of such phenomena.

Newton didn’t just make up his theory from the top of his head. He had observed natural phenomena of objects falling to the ground, and he was the only one, because about a century earlier, Galileo tried to explain falling objects by dropping things from the Tower of Pisa.

I don’t remember what experiments Newton himself had performed, but it would have required measuring the masses of objects, measuring the time they would have taken to fall to the ground from certain heights. The time and distance measured would have given the speed, or more precisely the velocity (because velocity include the direction with speed) of the falling objects, but more importantly it would provide the calculations for acceleration. The acceleration and mass would provide the calculations of the forces.

As you can see, or should see, Newton would have deducted the equations of not only the forces, but the downward velocity and acceleration, and the acceleration would be the same for masses of objects dropped from certain height, hence a constant acceleration 9.14 m/s^2.

Based on the technology of his time, Newton tried to explain what he observed, with some equations that are based on his observations and data he collected from his observations, measurements taken and numbers collected. His theory and equations were was based on observations, testing done and data collected.

Maxwell would have done the same things with his theory on electromagnetic fields. Maxwell didn’t invented his explanations from imagination, but based on his observations of the natural phenomena of magnets and electricity, to formulate his equations, data collected from observations and testing.

I don’t see anything remotely similar in Samuel’s video or in the moron Robitaille’s video. Where are their data (observations + measurements), where are their equations and numbers?

As I keep telling you without data from observations and from testings, their videos are just words that are only speculative and baseless.

Even you, won’t provide any observed data and equations for this Electric Universe cosmology. Any time someone like me, @ecco , @Polymath257 or someone else have asked you to show equations and data , you would make some half-assed excuses and pretend no one have asked you again and again.