Public Education And Independent Self-Taught Research

[Native]

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?

I KNOW. What do you propose yourself? Take a break in your armchair and think

 

[Native]

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

I don´t think so.

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

Of course it all depends on ones background of assembled informations - AND of ones critical and logical thinking. AND of ones skills of pattern recognition, and on being able to connect natural dots in a different way.

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

Or thinking a Solar System gravitational law to fit in galaxies

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.

Sure - try this testing methodology on Big Bang and Black Holes and other unsolved cosmological matters - and then you have to go back to your philosophical armchair for more thinking.

 

[Native]

MY FINAL REPLY TO "GNOSTIC":

gnostic said: ↑
It is better to be systematic with replies, to avoid misunderstanding, putting with your tiresome paranoid fantasies and conspiracy theories, and your transparent misinformation.

THAT DOES IT PERMANENTLY FOR ME - "GNOSTIC" ARE NOW FIGURING ON MY IGNORE LIST FOR GOOD.

 

[Polymath257]

Jeeezz Polymath
So "gravity" also pulls upwards in the atmosphere?

No. That is not what I said.

And now, the subjective concept of "speed" - besides simple rising temperature - also overcome your unexplained weak gravity?

Gravity is a force. It describes acceleration, not speed or position. if the speed is large enough, then the particle has enough kinetic energy to exchange with the gravitational potential energy and 'escape'. The required escape velocity is computed easily enough and is the same as what a rocket needs to get away from the Earth.

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

The description is done the same way in all cases. But, just like a ball thrown will more speed will be able to go up higher, a molecule with more speed will be able to as well.

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.

The forces aren't changing at all. And yes, a rising temperature means that more molecules will have the required escape velocity.

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

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And if that is done, the predictions given are even less in agreement than gravity without dark matter.

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 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.

Which preconditions and factual information? Give details.

I KNOW. What do you propose yourself? Take a break in your armchair and think

I propose that the cosmic dist and gas have almost nothing to do with motion in the solar system, let alone anything on Earth.

 

[Polymath257]

I don´t think so.

Of course it all depends on ones background of assembled informations - AND of ones critical and logical thinking. AND of ones skills of pattern recognition, and on being able to connect natural dots in a different way.

Or thinking a Solar System gravitational law to fit in galaxies

Sure - try this testing methodology on Big Bang and Black Holes and other unsolved cosmological matters - and then you have to go back to your philosophical armchair for more thinking.

Which is done. And it works. That is all that is required.

When attempts are made using only E&M, they fail miserably. And that is all that is required to reject such.

 

[Native]

BTW:

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

OK, you try to let a bowling bell and a feather fall from an aeoroplane flying at 10.000 km and if you think it through in your armchair, you´ll get the real and natural hint of Newtons occult invention.

 

[Native]

Gravity is a force. It describes acceleration, not speed or position.

Well, not to Einstein and nor to me.

The required escape velocity is computed easily enough and is the same as what a rocket needs to get away from the Earth.

I bet you that "the weight pressure of air" is incorporated in these calculations.

The forces aren't changing at all. And yes, a rising temperature means that more molecules will have the required escape velocity.

Not correct according to this article.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
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.

And if that is done, the predictions given are even less in agreement than gravity without dark matter.

You get what you´re expecting according to your theory biases. Get some new and expect some new discoveries. If a fundamental force cannot explain certain conditions and require human inventions as dark matter, use other forces.

Which preconditions and factual information? Give details.

You have already several times rejected my, somewhat detailed, explanations of the formation of the Milky Way and the Solar System, and here I´ll just refer to the "inside-out" formation of the Milky Way which perfectly confirm my several decades perception and explanation.

Native said: ↑
I KNOW. What do you propose yourself? Take a break in your armchair and think

I propose that the cosmic dist and gas have almost nothing to do with motion in the solar system, let alone anything on Earth.

At least you got the "almost" included in your sentence

Just because I referred to "gas and dust" in space and in the Earth´s atmosphere, you interestingly and automatically connected this to the term, “orbital motions,” and claimed this cannot explain the planetary motions in the Solar System. But it really can.

Cosmic clouds of gas and dust also builds galaxies in where “Solar Systems” are formed and provides rotation and orbital motions from the formative force, you know by now: The attractive polarity in the strong electromagnetic force.

And the, on a smaller scale terrestrial connection, is the Earth´s magnetic field and it´s gaseous and dusty atmosphere. It´s only a question of having the philosophical pattern recognition skills.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I don´t think so.

Of course it all depends on ones background of assembled informations - AND of ones critical and logical thinking. AND of ones skills of pattern recognition, and on being able to connect natural dots in a different way.

Or thinking a Solar System gravitational law to fit in galaxies

Sure - try this testing methodology on Big Bang and Black Holes and other unsolved cosmological matters - and then you have to go back to your philosophical armchair for more thinking.

Which is done. And it works. That is all that is required.

Get real will you? So now we at last have a conventional accepted Theory of Everything?

All you have cosmologically are confirmed biases in theories which only survives because of human inventions and corrections of the Universe.

When attempts are made using only E&M, they fail miserably. And that is all that is required to reject such

Be a litte specific and try to tell me HOW and WHY.

 

[Polymath257]

BTW:

OK, you try to let a bowling bell and a feather fall from an aeoroplane flying at 10.000 km and if you think it through in your armchair, you´ll get the real and natural hint of Newtons occult invention.

Try a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum and see what happens. The air resistance is more relevant to the feather. Without air, they fall at the same rate.

Well, not to Einstein and nor to me.

I bet you that "the weight pressure of air" is incorporated in these calculations.[/QUOTE]

And you would be wrong.

Not correct according to this article.

Huh? No, that article has *nothing* to do with what I said. It has to do with the *very small* differences in the gravitational field at the surface due to differences in local density of rocks. Such gravitational surveys have been done for decades and are used to discover ores and oil underground.

Which, by the way, shows that gravity actually exists.

Native said: ↑
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.

But the dynamical details of gravity and E&M are too different to 'just insert'. If you want to dispense with gravity, you have to do ALL of the calculations over with E&M as the force. And, when that is done, the results of the calculations simply don't fit the observations (mostly because of the lack of enough charged matter to act upon).

You get what you´re expecting according to your theory biases. Get some new and expect some new discoveries. If a fundamental force cannot explain certain conditions and require human inventions as dark matter, use other forces.

You have already several times rejected my, somewhat detailed, explanations of the formation of the Milky Way and the Solar System, and here I´ll just refer to the "inside-out" formation of the Milky Way which perfectly confirm my several decades perception and explanation.

I find it cute that you think you gave a 'somewhat detailed explanation' at any point. Instead, you gave rather vague, hand-waving generalities with *no* details at all, *no* correspondence with actual observations, *no* calculations based on the known properties of E&M (not even back of the envelope to show some degree of plausibility).

Native said: ↑
I KNOW. What do you propose yourself? Take a break in your armchair and think

At least you got the "almost" included in your sentence

Whatever influence exists is far, far below anything detectable.

Just because I referred to "gas and dust" in space and in the Earth´s atmosphere, you interestingly and automatically connected this to the term, “orbital motions,” and claimed this cannot explain the planetary motions in the Solar System. But it really can.

Prove it. Give detailed calculations, based on known plasma physics and actual data to describe the motion of the Earth.

Explain, using *only* E&M, why the orbit of the Earth is close to being an ellipse.

Cosmic clouds of gas and dust also builds galaxies in where “Solar Systems” are formed and provides rotation and orbital motions from the formative force, you know by now: The attractive polarity in the strong electromagnetic force.

Huh? Do you realize that the regions of gas and dust are so dispersed they would not be able to exert any significant force on a planet? You seem to think the planets are being blown around the sun by the force of this gas and dust. But that simply isn't the case: once you get away from the atmosphere's of the planets, the space in between is an almost perfect vacuum---a much better one than we can even produce on Earth. There is not enough gas and dust to affect the motion at all.

And the, on a smaller scale terrestrial connection, is the Earth´s magnetic field and it´s gaseous and dusty atmosphere. It´s only a question of having the philosophical pattern recognition skills.[/QUOTE]

 

[gnostic]

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

BTW:

OK, you try to let a bowling bell and a feather fall from an aeoroplane flying at 10.000 km and if you think it through in your armchair, you´ll get the real and natural hint of Newtons occult invention.

Gravity have more to with acceleration than velocity or speed.

Velocity and acceleration are related, but you need to remember something can move at constant velocity, that wold mean acceleration would be zero; the object is still moving even where there are no acceleration. It is when acceleration or deceleration are applied, that would involve the changes in velocity.

In the case of free falling objects, it is the acceleration that’s constant, not the speed.

Gravity is acceleration, and the Earth’s gravity is constant whether the objects are heavier or lighter.

Adding mass into the equations, the acceleration (gravity) still don’t change.

Plus, dropping objects from a plane isn’t the same as in the vacuum. Dropping bowling and feather the acceleration are the same for both objects, but then you would have to take into account air pressure and air friction, these will change the result of which objects would reach the ground first.

Edit: I forgot that since objects have masses, so inertia also play a part.

But in a vacuum, you don’t have to worry about air, therefore there are no pressure and no friction. They will fall and hit the ground at same time.

But the point you need to remember whether in vacuum or in no vacuum, acceleration for all falling objects are the same.

Your problem is that you are confusing gravity as force, it is isn’t, it is acceleration. Gravitational force is where you combine acceleration (gravity) and mass together.

 

[Subduction Zone]

BTW:

OK, you try to let a bowling bell and a feather fall from an aeoroplane flying at 10.000 km and if you think it through in your armchair, you´ll get the real and natural hint of Newtons occult invention.

You forgot about air resistance, didn't you. So what happens if we drop a feather and a bowling ball in the world's largest vacuum chamber? Surely the bowling ball will fall faster, isn't that why ir rings? But one needs to test that scientifically. I got a friend of mine to test this idea in the world's largest vacuum chamber. Both with air and more importantly without:

 

[gnostic]

You forgot about air resistance, didn't you. So what happens if we drop a feather and a bowling ball in the world's largest vacuum chamber? Surely the bowling ball will fall faster, isn't that why ir rings? But one needs to test that scientifically. I got a friend of mine to test this idea in the world's largest vacuum chamber. Both with air and more importantly without:

@Native

As you can see in Brian Cox’s video, gravity or acceleration are the same with ball and feather in a vacuum chamber. No air will show that both objects will land at the same time.

Thank you, @Subduction Zone

Now, @Native, can you explain this experiment scientifically and mathematically with just EM and without gravity?

I don’t think you can. I certainly won’t be holding my breath

 

[Native]

Try a bowling ball and a feather in a vacuum and see what happens. The air resistance is more relevant to the feather. Without air, they fall at the same rate.

I don´t investigate natural as such by removing parts of it´s natural contents.Take a flying trip and make your conclusions.

Native said: ↑
Well, not to Einstein and nor to me.
I bet you that "the weight pressure of air" is incorporated in these calculations.

And you would be wrong.

You mean, it´s only at a spacecraft re-entrance the "the weight pressure of air" is accounted for?

You seem to think the planets are being blown around the sun by the force of this gas and dust.

No, this your skewed interpretation and decription of my explanations, rather fit the conventional model made up by occult assumptions.

Your mind doesn´t seem to like gaseous clouds be affected and rotated by a force which in itself are based on rotational and obital motions. Its apparently too much for you to imagine electromagnetically qualified atoms to be affected by external electromagnetic forces and assembled by its attractive polarity.

 

[Native]

You forgot about air resistance, didn't you. So what happens if we drop a feather and a bowling ball in the world's largest vacuum chamber? Surely the bowling ball will fall faster, isn't that why ir rings? But one needs to test that scientifically. I got a friend of mine to test this idea in the world's largest vacuum chamber. Both with air and more importantly without:

Test natural forces ind their natural conditions and don´t fiddle with natural causes. Take a trip high up in the Earth´s atmosphere with your friend and bowling ball and feather and see what happen.

 

[Polymath257]

I don´t investigate natural as such by removing parts of it´s natural contents.Take a flying trip and make your conclusions.

Already done.

And you still have to explain why both the feather and the bowling ball fall in a vacuum. And why they fall at the same rate.

Also, since space is a vacuum, that is directly relevant to how things move in a vacuum.

Native said: ↑
Well, not to Einstein and nor to me.
I bet you that "the weight pressure of air" is incorporated in these calculations.

You mean, it´s only at a spacecraft re-entrance the "the weight pressure of air" is accounted for?

Huh? The air pressure during re-entry is because the ship is moving through the atmosphere. It has *nothing* to do with the escape velocity.

No, this your skewed interpretation and decription of my explanations, rather fit the conventional model made up by occult assumptions.

Your mind doesn´t seem to like gaseous clouds be affected and rotated by a force which in itself are based on rotational and obital motions. Its apparently too much for you to imagine electromagnetically qualified atoms to be affected by external electromagnetic forces and assembled by its attractive polarity.

Not at all too much. But you need to show that there are electromagnetic fields of the strength needed to produce such motions in neutral atoms. Also, you need to give details, based on Maxwll's equations, about how they are assembled due to those 'attractive polarities'.

 

[Polymath257]

Test natural forces ind their natural conditions and don´t fiddle with natural causes. Take a trip high up in the Earth´s atmosphere with your friend and bowling ball and feather and see what happen.

Which is irrelevant if you want to study motion of things in a vacuum. You know, like the motion of planets.

The ball and feather both fall at the same rate in a vacuum. That alone shows that air pressure cannot be the basic reason for them falling.

 

[Native]

And you still have to explain why both the feather and the bowling ball fall in a vacuum. And why they fall at the same rate.

Just go outside in the free nature and make your own logical conclusions.

Also, since space is a vacuum, that is directly relevant to how things move in a vacuum.

Sure, there is nothing but gravity everywhere in the observable universe because this is what you´ve been taught and you believe it despite it cannot be explained scientifically or causably by what dynamic means it should work.

So, you´re a true believer.

 

[Native]

Which is irrelevant if you want to study motion of things in a vacuum. You know, like the motion of planets.
The ball and feather both fall at the same rate in a vacuum. That alone shows that air pressure cannot be the basic reason for them falling.

Apparently, natural conditions isn´t something you take serious,