Public Education And Independent Self-Taught Research

[Native]

Thank you for your opinion. My philosophical position is different than yours.

Yes, the difference is that I HAVE a philosophical position.

 

[Native]

Now. You are changing the subject on me, by trying to shifting the goalpost, from “cosmic cloud of gas and dust” to “Earth’s atmosphere”.

Do you need help to combine similar elements in different locations, so just ask for it.

You are forgetting that the strong nuclear force maybe the strongest force, but strong force are limited to quantum range (eg formation of baryon particles consisting of quarks) and atomic range (eg what keep protons together in atom’s nucleus).

I don´t care of the standing cosmological - or yours - reductive perception of a fundamental EM-Force.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Nonsense! "Gravity" cannot even attract a single oxygen molecule in the Earth´s atmosphere! Use your comparative and logical senses.

Of course it can. And it does. But since the molecule is small, the force is small. But gravity is why those molecules stay close to the Earth as opposed to flying away into space.

Can´t you see how disconnected and contraintuitive this argument is? You claim gravity to hold the entire about 5 quadrillion tons weight of air/atmosphere, but this assumed force cannot even overcome to hold onto the single molecule which ascends because of simple rising of temperatures.

What doesn´t work on the micro-scales also doesn´t work on macro scales Simple philosophical logics.

That is, after all, how buoyancy works: the different forces from gravity versus molecular collisions.

Nonsense again. The concept of "buoyancy" all depends on "densities" and the concept of "gravity" only corresponds as a "dence flaw", as it even cannot be scientifially explained - contrary to the real E&M Force.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, the difference is that I HAVE a philosophical position.

Oh, I do as well. My philosophical position is that observation and testing is required for knowledge. That to really learn about the universe around us takes patience and precision. And that simply sitting in a chair and imagining what is possible is only the first step.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Nonsense! "Gravity" cannot even attract a single oxygen molecule in the Earth´s atmosphere! Use your comparative and logical senses.

Of course it can. And it does.

Can´t you see how disconnected and contraintuitive this argument is? You claim gravity to hold the entire about 5 quadrillion tons weight of air/atmosphere, but this assumed force cannot even overcome to hold onto the single molecule which ascends because of simple rising of temperatures.

You are starting with a false premise. The gravity of the Earth *does*, in fact, hold the molecules to the Earth. And it does so individually, so it also works in the collective.

What doesn´t work on the micro-scales also doesn´t work on macro scales Simple philosophical logics.

But it does work at the micro scale! Look up the Etvos experiment some time.

Nonsense again. The concept of "buoyancy" all depends on "densities" and the concept of "gravity" only corresponds as a "dence flaw", as it even cannot be scientifially explained - contrary to the real E&M Force.

Exactly the opposite of what is the truth. Buoyancy is simply the difference between the gravitational pull and the forces surrounding. A basic class will fully explain that. And it has been known since Archimedes.

 

[gnostic]

Do you need help to combine similar elements in different locations, so just ask for it.

It is you, who having problem with understanding that what the cosmic clouds of gas and dust occur, and what goes on Earth.

If you want to talk about the Earth, I can do that. But that would mean putting aside the "cosmic clouds of gas and dust", WHICH YOU BROUGHT UP.

It is not the same thing; it is just you switching subject - back and forth, a tactics to cause distraction on your already weak claim about cosmic clouds.

This is why I rather we stay on topic.

If you want to talk about the Earth, then fine, don't mix two completely different subjects. Just start a new post that focused only about the Earth.

 

[rational experiences]

Consciousness of a human says.

Once I taught earths dust owned a very slight transmitter as paper can even block it...dusts natural supported bio lifes existence.

It's why I knew machine experiments are all fake.

As before my machine I conjured myself....is dusts.

Not often do I remind myself that the machines body itself already has all those incidences trapped within its owned machine body.

Why once I even said the machine is position god so I would not theory beyond it.

 

[Native]

Oh, I do as well. My philosophical position is that observation and testing is required for knowledge. That to really learn about the universe around us takes patience and precision. And that simply sitting in a chair and imagining what is possible is only the first step.

OK, at least you got that genuine philosophical practice correct.

But this imagining goes terribly wrong when the practising persons are assuming things which cannot be explained by natural observations or by the standing science - you can yourself add all the "dark-thing" associated assumptions which are connected to the conventional cosmological science.

 

[Native]

You are starting with a false premise. The gravity of the Earth *does*, in fact, hold the molecules to the Earth. And it does so individually, so it also works in the collective.

And your premis is that "gravity hold the atmosphere to the Earth but not the molecules which are escaping the lower levels of this enormeous pull and fly away to the top layers of our atmosphere. Do a little logical analysis and works on this disconnected statement, please.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Do you need help to combine similar elements in different locations, so just ask for it.

It is you, who having problem with understanding that what the cosmic clouds of gas and dust occur, and what goes on Earth.

I´m AMAZED you even cannot make the simple and logical connection between gaseous clouds in space and on Earth - which was why I became a bit sarcastic.

I´m SO tired of your systematic replies! First you ignore your ignorance of not bing able to connect things, and then you project it out on your surroundings and keep on with your usual conventional parroting.

 

[PureX]

Just because a guy from 150+ years ago, a time when most people were minimally educated, made some important discoveries, does not create an excuse for you to act like you know better than literally every professional physicist on the planet today despite a lack of higher education in the field.

Amen! And amen.

Calling old scientific theories "occult" is the dead giveaway.

 

[Native]

Sub-OP especially for "plasma"-orientation:

Watch this video about the standing plasma-concepts:

Somebody in the standing cosmology clearly have forgotten to do their philosophically pondering homeworks in their armchairs . . .

 

[Native]

Calling old scientific theories "occult" is the dead giveaway.

Sure it is. And this was what Newtons present colleges accused Newton for, namely for "inserting occult agensies" in his gravitational mental constructs.

There you have a big dead giveaway . . .

 

[Polymath257]

And your premis is that "gravity hold the atmosphere to the Earth but not the molecules which are escaping the lower levels of this enormeous pull and fly away to the top layers of our atmosphere. Do a little logical analysis and works on this disconnected statement, please.

Molecules tend to move at fairly high speeds. Other things moving at those speeds would, under the force of gravity, go to the upper levels of the atmosphere as well.

A few of the molecules (not all) have a high enough velocity (called the escape velocity) to escape into space. Large things with the same velocity would escape as well.

Gravity applies to both the large and the small. But molecules at ordinary temperatures move pretty fast.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, at least you got that genuine philosophical practice correct.

But this imagining goes terribly wrong when the practising persons are assuming things which cannot be explained by natural observations or by the standing science - you can yourself add all the "dark-thing" associated assumptions which are connected to the conventional cosmological science.

No, the imagining goes wrong when it isn't tested by observation. Dark matter is a natural consequence of observations. Those observations cannot be explained in detail using only E&M, nor can they be explained in detail only by modifying the details of gravity.

It is common practice to deduce the existence of things we have not yet seen. This, for example, lead to the discovery of Neptune. The observed motion of Uranus was not what was predicted by Newton's laws. That didn't mean the laws were wrong: it meant that something hadn't been taken into account when applying them. And that 'something' was another planet. it was actually observed years later.

 

[Polymath257]

Native said: ↑
Do you need help to combine similar elements in different locations, so just ask for it.

I´m AMAZED you even cannot make the simple and logical connection between gaseous clouds in space and on Earth - which was why I became a bit sarcastic.

I´m SO tired of your systematic replies! First you ignore your ignorance of not bing able to connect things, and then you project it out on your surroundings and keep on with your usual conventional parroting.

OK, what *is* the connection between clouds of gas and dust in space thousands of light years away and the Earth? What connection do you propose?

 

[Polymath257]

OK, at least you got that genuine philosophical practice correct.

But this imagining goes terribly wrong when the practising persons are assuming things which cannot be explained by natural observations or by the standing science - you can yourself add all the "dark-thing" associated assumptions which are connected to the conventional cosmological science.

You missed the part where I said it was only the first step.

Sitting and thinking, with no observation and testing, is likely to go very wrong.

Things that seem obvious can turn out to be false (for example, thinking that heavy things would fall faster than lighter things).

It can be the case that things that seem to be clearly false are actually true (like the roundness of the Earth).

Even the notion of an 'explanation' is far more complicated than most people realize. It does NOT mean that some sort of mechanical description is given, for example.

So, because philosophical musings are likely to be wrong, we insist that those musing be tested by actual observations. And, along with testability goes the requirement for precision. It is much easier to test an idea that gives a lot of precision in its predictions. And if that precision is verified by actual observation, that gives a degree of confidence in the theory.

And that confidence is well founded whether or not someone else's philosophical musing disagree

 

[Polymath257]

It´s called "philosophical ponderings" over factual standing scientific conditions

And guess which one wins? The factual standing scientific conditions.

Philosophical ponderings *alone* are never enough.

 

[Native]

Molecules tend to move at fairly high speeds. Other things moving at those speeds would, under the force of gravity, go to the upper levels of the atmosphere as well.

Jeeezz Polymath
So "gravity" also pulls upwards in the atmosphere? And now, the subjective concept of "speed" - besides simple rising temperature - also overcome your unexplained weak gravity?

Gravity applies to both the large and the small.

How convenient. When it doesn apply logically and can´t be explained naturally, you just can chose freely the one and another what counts in the specific situations

Unless you´ll have your gravity force to temperarily change it´s forces, your "escape velocity" in this molecular case derives from simple temperature rising, which overcomes the assumed pull from the Earth.

This is the facts and your attempt to act logically failed completely IMO.

 

[Native]

No, the imagining goes wrong when it isn't tested by observation.

And then you come up with a biased contradiction:

Dark matter is a natural consequence of observations.

No, it isn´t. It´s a matter of conventional cosmological science running out of natural explanations from other perspectives.

Those observations cannot be explained in detail using only E&M, nor can they be explained in detail only by modifying the details of gravity.

It sure can - just get quite rid of the unexplainable gravitational ideas and insert the laws of electromagnetism working in the plasma stages in cosmic clouds of gas and dust.

It is common practice to deduce the existence of things we have not yet seen. This, for example, lead to the discovery of Neptune. The observed motion of Uranus was not what was predicted by Newton's laws. That didn't mean the laws were wrong: it meant that something hadn't been taken into account when applying them. And that 'something' was another planet. it was actually observed years later.

Such a deductive method failed completely on galactic scales, hence a dark matter had to be invented and inserted when this "Newtonian deduction" method failed.

And that 'something' was another planet. it was actually observed years later.

And now scientists are looking for yet another "Planet X" because there are orbital motions in the Solar System which denies obeying and following the laws in the deductive method.

Scientists will never find the correct explanations of our Solar System unless they include the very preconditions and factual formation of the Milky Way.